IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11854/2008 Decided on:11.4.2011 _____________________________________________ Gurdayal. …Petitioner. Versus H.P.S.E.B. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was engaged for 90 days on 26.8.1994. Thereafter he worked for 72 days. He approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 2544/1999. The learned Tribunal passed interim order in favour of the petitioner on 1.3.1999. He was re-engaged in the month of March, 1999. Thereafter, the original application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 20.3.2002, which led to the termination of the petitioner. He preferred another O.A. No. 753/2003. The same was directed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 to be treated as representation to the Secretary of the respondent-Board. Petitioner was re-engaged on 6.8.2003. 2. Mr. S.S. Sood has vehemently argued that since his client had already completed 8 years of regular service, he was required to be regularized by the respondent-Board. 3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has argued that since the petitioner had not completed 8 years continuous service, his services could not be regularized. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that in sequel to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal on 1.3.1999, petitioner was re- engaged in the month of March, 1999. He continuously worked upto 2002. His services were terminated on 24.8.2002. He challenged his termination by way of O.A. No. 753/2003, which led to the re-engagement of the petitioner on 6.8.2003. Petitioner has only worked continuously from 1999, that too, on the basis of interim order upto 24.8.2002. Thereafter there is a break of one complete year from 24.8.2002 till the date of his re-engagement, i.e. 6.8.2003. Thus, the petitioner had not completed 8 years of continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year and, as such, directions cannot be issued to the respondents to consider his 3 case for regularization. However, it is made clear that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for regularization as and when he completes the requisite number of years, as per the policy framed by the State Government, adopted by the respondent-Board, for regularization. 6. In view of above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 11.4.2011 *awasthi*