IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 11136 of 2008. Decided on: 21.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Surjeet Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had been working uninterruptedly since 1991 till 2003 and completed 240 days in each calendar year. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-1. A bare perusal of the same substantiates the case of the petitioner. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mool 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. The respondents shall also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been appointed before 31.12.1993 on daily wage basis and completed 240 days in each calendar year. He will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 2. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 21, 2010. (sck).