IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 120 of 2009. Decided on: March 3,2010. H.P.S.E.B. and another. ….. Appellants. Versus Ramesh Kumar and another. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the Appellants: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 : Ms. Salochana Kaundal, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The respondents, who are appellants herein, are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The issue pertains to the claim made by the writ petitioner for regularization as Meter Ledger Clerk at least with effect from the date when his junior was regularized. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to consider him for regularization as aforementioned. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that in the case of the writ petitioner, his initial appointment was not as Meter Ledger Clerk but as Bill Distributor and, therefore as per the settlement, without completing the required period of five years, there cannot be any regularization. The writ petitioner joined the service in the year 1987, therefore, there is no question of regularization as Meter Ledger Clerk from 1991, it is submitted. But the fact remains that the learned Single Judge having -2- regard to the materials available before the Court has entered a finding of fact that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was as Meter Ledger Clerk. On a pointed query from the Court as to whether the records would show that there was an appointment as Meter Ledger Clerk, the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that some records would also indicate that the writ petitioner was appointed and working as Meter Ledger Clerk. If that be so, this Court in appeal will not be justified in interfering with the discretionary exercise of jurisdiction made by the learned Single Judge, more so, on a finding of fact. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 3, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (ks) Judge.