CWP(T) No. 7745 of 2008 with CWP(T) No. 7704 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 7705 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 7706 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 7717 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 7725 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 7726 of 2008, CWP(T) No. 7760 of 2008 and CWP(T) No. 7770 of 2008. 10.11.2010 Present: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in all the petitions except CWP(T) No. 7706 of 2008. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate, for petitioner in CWP(T) No. 7706 of 2008. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the matter in issue is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5253 of 2008, titled as Narain Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 21.4.2010 and in CWP(T) No. 5249 of 2008, titled as Dharam Parkash versus State, decided on 19.5.2010 and also by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 293. 2. In these petitions it has been contended that persons who were otherwise junior to the petitioners, on completion of eight years of continuous service stand regularised. Principle of last come first go obviously has not been adopted by the State. In Narain Singh (supra) it is held that: “Accordingly, in view of the observations, made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The termination of -2- the petitioner dated 22.05.2000 is declared illegal being violative of the principle of “last come first go”. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization as lecturer (School Cadre) by taking into consideration his initial engagement w.e.f. 23.09.1998. The period of break in service between 22.05.2000 to 22.09.2001 is condoned. This period shall be counted for all intents and purposes, including seniority. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs.” 3. It is clear from counter affidavit dated 18.7.2009 filed by the Director Education that petitioner Smt. Kanta Sharma has been re-engaged by the respondents. However in other petitions it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that they were subsequently re-engaged. Almost a decade is over since the petition was filed. In other similarly situated cases most of the employees stand re-engaged. However this fact could not be verified from the record. Be that as it may be directions issued in Narain Singh (supra) squarely apply to the instant facts. Consequently it is ordered that such directions shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant cases also. Respondents shall take consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. All petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 10, 2010 (PK)