IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 15959 of 2008. Decided on: 06.04.2010. _____________________________________________________ Govind Shandil. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner claims that he was engaged on daily wage basis in the year, 1993. He was retrenched on 01.04.2000. He filed an Original Application No. 1863 of 2000 before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was decided on 29.09.2000. Respondents were directed by the learned Tribunal to re-engage the petitioner and to give him seniority from the date of dis-engagement till the date of re- engagement. He was re-engaged on 11.11.2000. The judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 29.09.2000 was challenged before this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 1113 of 2001. This Court has set aside 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. the judgment of the Tribunal on 17.04.2002. Petitioner has also placed on record the memorandum of settlement dated 4.7.2007. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that since he was engaged in the year, 1993, he should have been conferred with work charge status in the year, 2003. He has heavily relied upon the terms and conditions contained in memorandum of settlement dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure A-1). Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since his client has completed 10 years’ of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, the respondents were bound to confer work charge status on his client. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that petitioner was engaged in the month of January, 1998 and not in the year, 1993, as claimed by the petitioner. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-1, i.e., Mandays Chart of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Petitioner has not placed any material on record to establish that he was engaged in the year, 1993. He has been engaged as per Annexure R-1 in the month of January, 1998. He was retrenched on 1.4.2000, as noticed above. Petitioner was re- engaged as per the orders of the Tribunal on 11.11.2000. The judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.09.2000, rendered in O.A. No. 1863 of 2000 was set aside by this Court in C.W.P. No. 1113 of 2001 on 17.04.2002. It is evident from Annexure R-4 that the petitioner has worked for 342 days in 1998 and for 350 days in 1999. He has worked only for 142, 182, 49, 157 and 198 days in the years, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006 and 2007, respectively. He has not worked at all w.e.f. 21.09.2002 to 20.04.2006 as per Annexure R-1. Since the petitioner has worked intermittently between 2000 to 2007, he cannot be given the benefit of this period towards seniority. It appears that memorandum of settlement has been prepared without taking into consideration whether the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 2000 to 2007 or not. He is only entitled to benefit of two years service when he had completed 240 days, i.e., in the years, 1998 and 1999. Since the petitioner had not completed 10 years’ continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year, respondents can not be directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 06, 2010. (bhupender)