IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 859 of 2010. Date of Decision: 24th May, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Rishi Pal ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved that his claim for regularization on completion of eight years of daily wage service has been declined, as per Annexure P-5. It is seen from Annexure P- 2 that the petitioner has been appointed as Sweeper on daily wage basis against a vacant post of Sweeper till the joining of a regular Sweeper. As per Annexure P-6, report of the audit party, it is seen that the audit-party had clarified that the petitioner having been appointed against a regular post, wages could have been paid only from the Government Head against a regular vacant post of Sweeper and not from the amalgamated fund. The purpose of amalgamated fund is entirely different. It is not meant to meet the salary of the regular Sweeper. The Government policy speaks only on regularization of a daily wage worker having been worked for eight years or 240 days in a year. In case there was a vacancy - 2 - of Sweeper in the College and in case the petitioner has worked against that post, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s case could not be considered under the regularization policy. 2. Therefore, we set aside Annexure P-5, with a direction to the second respondent to pass an order in the matter in the light of Annexure P-6 (reference to the audit-objection) and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has worked in the College against a regular vacant post of Sweeper for over eight years with 240 days in a year on daily wage basis, the petitioner shall be considered for regularization in terms of the policy of the Government from the date when he completed eight years. The needful order shall be passed by the second respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition to be supplied by the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Kurian Joseph), C.J. May 24th, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)