IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 16241 of 2008. Decided on: 13.07.2011. _______________________________________________ Prem Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was engaged as Beldar on 1st February, 1982. He has worked in this capacity upto 14th October, 1982. Thereafter the petitioner was engaged as Helper on 15th October, 1982 and he worked in this capacity upto 31st March, 1987. It is evident from Annexure R-III that thereafter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - the petitioner was engaged as Pump Operator and he worked as Pump Operator with effect from 1st April, 1987 to 2nd November, 1995. He has worked continuously for more than 8 years as Pump Operator. However, he has been regularised as Helper on 3rd November, 1995. 2. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered for regularisation as Pump Operator and not as Helper since he has worked continuously for 8 years as Pump Operator. The petitioner has worked only for about 5 years as Helper. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that as per the Policy framed by the Government, the petitioner was to be regularised in the lowest post. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has worked, as noticed above, as Pump Operator with effect from 1987 to 1995. He has worked as Helper only for 5 years w.e.f. 15th October, 1982 to 31st March, 1987. Petitioner has worked continuously for more than 8 years as Pump Operator at the time when he was regularised as Helper with effect from 1st April, 1995. The Court is of the considered view that the case of the - 3 - petitioner ought to have been considered for regularisation against the post on which he has worked for larger period and he ought to have been regularised as Pump Operator with effect from 1st April, 1995. The action of the respondents of considering the case of the petitioner for regularisation as Helper and not as Pump Operator, is arbitrary. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as Pump Operator with effect from 1st April, 1995, within a period of 10 weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. The joining of duty by the petitioner as Helper will not come in his way to claim regularisation as Pump Operator in view of law laid down by this Court in Gauri Dutt and others Vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 13, 2011. (sck).