IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9729 of 2008. Decided on: 17.6.2011. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gulaba Ram … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court with certain grievances regarding regularization. 2. In the reply on behalf of the respondents, it is stated vide para 6 (iv) to (vi) as follows:- “That the regularization of daily wages/contingent paid workers is being done as per the guidelines/instructions of the Govt. circulated vide letter No. PER (AP)-C-B (2)- 2/97- Vol. IV Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel (AP-III), dt. Shimla 171002, the 6th May, 2000 is annexed as Annexure R-I, para 2 (ii) of said policy is reproduced: (ii) Completion of required years of service makes such daily wager/contingent paid worker eligible for consideration to regularized/to be brought on work charge category and regularization in all cases will be from prospective effect i.e. from the date of order of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. In future, even in Public Works Department and Irrigation & Public Health Department, regularization/bringing daily wagers on work charge category will also be from prospective effect like in all other departments. 2 That the completion of required years of service is the only necessary condition for the consideration for regularization and availability of post is the mandatory condition for being regularized. The services of the applicant has been regularized when both these conditions i.e. completion of service for the required number of years and the availability of posts were fulfilled. Which on completion of these two conditions have to be made prospectively but not retrospectively as per the instructions and verdict of Hon’ble High Court Annexure R-1 and R-2, respectively. Hence the contents which are contrary to this factual position are as such wrong, therefore, denied.” 3. There is no rejoinder. In case the petitioner has still any grievance with regard to the stand taken in the reply, it would be open to him to approach the first respondent, in which case the matter will be duly considered by the first respondent. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Justice V.K. Sharma), Judge. June 17, 2011. (cr/virender)