IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6793 of 2010. Decided on: 18th November, 2010. Saroj Kumari …Petitioner. Versus HIMURJA & another … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 01-10-2010 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure P-1). b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant the benefit of the grant of work charge status and regularization in term within the policy of the state of Himachal Pradesh.” 2. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that in view of the non-availability of funds/grants from the Central Government, the first respondent is not in a position to continue the office and only to protect the interest of the workmen like the petitioner, steps are being taken as per Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization after completing eight years of service in terms of Government policy and if not, she should be conferred work charge status on completion of ten years service. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the question of conferment of work charge 2 status arises only if there is a policy prevailing at the time of completion of 10 years of service by the petitioner. As far as regularization is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to be considered; but that would depend upon the availability of the vacancies. The petitioner submits that in case there is no vacancy, the vacancies are to be created for regularization of employees who have completed eight years of service. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the same again depends upon the policy prevailing at the relevant time. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, we are of the view that the second respondent should look into the matter in terms of the policy prevailing at the time of completion of eight years service by the petitioner, subject to the availability of vacancies. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to look into the claim made by the petitioner for regularization in terms of the policy prevailing at the relevant time and take appropriate action in accordance with law treating the memorandum of the writ petition as representation within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of this writ petition by the petitioner. It is made clear that in case any workman who has joined duty after the petitioner has been regularized, the petitioner shall also be given regularization with effect from that date. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 18th November, 2010 (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tilak/vt) Judge. 3