1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9679 of 2008. Date of Decision: 8th December, 2010. Khema Ram …..Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms. Anjana Mohindroo, Advocate vice counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). As per the mandate chart Annexure (R4), respondents themselves have clarified that w.e.f. 1992 petitioner has served the respondents continuously for more than 240 days in each English Calendar year preceding 12 months. Consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of HP and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 316 which has been subsequently reiterated in State of HP and others versus Gehar Singh, (2007) 12 SCC 43. 2. Consequently, directions issued in Mool Raj Upadhyaya and Gehar Singh (supra) mutatis mutandis shall also be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Needful be done positively within a period of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 3. With these observations, present petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol) Judge December 8, 2010 (Jai)