IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No.1694 of 2008. Date of Decision: 24.06.2009. Piar Chand. ....Petitioner. Versus. H.R.T.C.and Others. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 and 2: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.65 of 1999 dated 23.10.2007. The case of the petitioner in brief is that initially he was appointed as daily waged Washer Boy in the respondent- Corporation in its workshop at Tapri on 23rd October, 1986 on payment of fix wages of Rs.750/- per month. The workshop at Tapri was closed and thereafter the petitioner was shifted to Reckong Peo. However, here he was not paid wages on monthly or daily wage basis. The Corporation started paying him wages at the rate of Rs.5/- per bus cleaned by him. The - 2 - petitioner admittedly continues to work as a Washer Boy at Reckong Peo and is being paid on piece rate basis, i.e. according to the number of buses cleaned by him. The case of the petitioner for regularization was rejected by the learned Tribunal on the ground that he was not working on daily wage basis and the scheme of regularization is only in respect of the employees who have been appointed on daily wages. We have heard Shri Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has failed to bring to our notice any document to show that he was ever paid salary on daily wage basis or on monthly basis. The documents attached by him with the petition show that every month the petitioner is paid different amount depending on the number of buses he had cleaned. He cannot be said to be a daily waged employee. As such, he cannot claim regularization on the basis of the policy relied upon by him. It is not disputed by the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has in fact been working with it since October, 1986. He has spent at least 23 years working for the Corporation. There is no complaint about the working of the petitioner. It may be true that there may not be a regular post of Washer Boy, but the petitioner can easily be adjusted against some other Class-IV post. Whether he is governed by the policy of regularization or not, it appears to us to be totally inequitable and unjustified on - 3 - the part of the respondent-Corporation not to offer him regular employment till date. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Corporation that as and when a post of Class- IV employee falls vacant in Shimla or Kinnaur districts, the respondent-Corporation shall offer employment to the petitioner against the said post. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja) Judge. June 24, 2009. (sck)