IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) 9323 of 2008-A Decided on November 3, 2011. Kesar Singh …Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. & Another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Ms. Bhavna Dutta, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who worked as supervisor on daily wage basis with the respondents, during 1994 to 1996, filed the present petition in the year 2003, before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as supervisor, in the same manner, in which services of several other daily waged employees, numbering 20, had been regularized. Petitioner’s plea is that though he was on the muster rolls of the respondents, only Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - during the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, later on, like other 20 persons, whose services had been regularized, he was engaged with one of the contractors, to whom various works of different Projects of respondent No. 1 had been awarded. His plea is that though 20 other workers, similarly situated, have been regularized by the respondents, treating their daily wage service with the contractors, as service under respondent No. 1, petitioner’s services have not been regularized. 2. Plea taken by the respondents is that other 20 persons were initially engaged by the respondents and thereafter by the contractors, but the petitioner had not been engaged by any contractor and, therefore, he has not been regularized. According to respondents, other 20 persons worked for requisite number of years, with 160 days in every calendar year, initially under respondent No. 1 and thereafter with the contractors, engaged by respondent No. 1, but that was not the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned. 3. I have gone through the record, including the record produced by respondent No. 1, pertaining to regularization of other 20 persons, and heard learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - 4. Record, produced by respondent No. 1, does not indicate that the petitioner had been engaged by any contractor. It shows that other 20 persons were considered by the Screening Committee for regularization of service, as their combined service on daily wage basis, under respondent No. 1 and the contractors, engaged by respondent No. 1, was for minimum number of requisite years, with 160 days in every calendar year (number of working days are required to be 160 days in a calendar year, instead of 240 days, because the Projects were located in difficult tribal area). 5. There is nothing on record, except for photo stat copy of a Certificate on loose paper, purporting to have been issued by an Assistant Engineer, that the petitioner had been working as Electrician in a Project of respondent No. 1, since April, 1994. The certificate is not dated. Admittedly, petitioner worked under respondent No. 1 during the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Certificate, Annexure A- 2, simply shows that the petitioner had been working since April, 1994, but as it does not bear any date, not even under the signatures of Assistant Engineer, by whom it purports to have been issued, it cannot be said that petitioner continued to work beyond 1996, as claimed by him. - 4 - 6. In view of the above stated position, present petition is dismissed. November 3, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.