IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4053 of 2009 Decided on: 2.11.2010 Chet Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that he be granted work charge status/regularized in terms of the policy of regularization being followed by the State of Himachal Pradesh which has been attached as annexure R/1 with the reply. The stand of the respondent-State is that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in eight given years upto the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. year 2009. The petitioner with his rejoinder has attached two mandays chart issued by the State. 2. As far as the second chart is concerned, no reliance can be placed on the same since it does not bear any stamp of the official issuing the same nor there is any indication that it is an official document. 3. As far as the first chart is concerned, it is apparent that from the year 2003 onward, the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year. He has now completed eight years in the year 2009 and is entitled for regularization. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by taking the first completed year as 2003. Needful be done on or before 31.3.2011. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 2nd November, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. (m)