CWP(T) No. 3087/2008 (OA No. 524/96) 20.3.2009 Present: Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vivek thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General for respondents. The petitioner is seeking regularization of his services as Mason w.e.f. 1st of January 1994, with all consequential benefits. The respondents in their reply have disputed the fact that the petitioner has been working as Mason w.e.f. 1.1.1994. Record, however, reveals that since January 1983 petitioner had been working as Beldar except for the month of June and July 1984 when he worked as a Mason. However, from the muster Roll so annexed with the reply it is evident that at least from 1990 up to 1993 he had been working as Mason. The prayer of the petitioner as such cannot be accepted as he has been working on regular basis as Beldar and not Mason. Undisputedly, it is the policy of the State Government to regularize those persons who have been continuously working on the same post for a period of ten years. It cannot be disputed that even the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the said policy and if he has worked as a Mason for a period of ten years he had to be regularized. Record does not suggest that during the pendency of the present petition petitioner’s services stand regularized. In this view of the matter, it is directed that if the petitioner fulfills the conditions of the policy of regularization as also the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of CWP(T) No. 3087/2008 (OA No. 524/96) H.P., 1994 Supp.(2) 316, work charge status shall be accorded to him with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 20, 2009 (vs)