IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP-T- No. 2921 of 2010 Decided on: 17.3.2011 Suresh Kumar ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The present petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii): “i) That the action of the respondent in not granting the work charge status the services of the applicant, may please be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may further be directed to give work charged status/regular appointment to the applicant from the due date(completion of 10 years) with all benefits incidental to from the due date i.e. the date when his juniors were granted the work charge status.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 2. In reply, the following stand has been taken by respondents vide para 6 (vii),(ix) & (x) : “(vii) In reply to this para it is submitted that the representation of the applicant was considered by the respondent No. 2 and it was found that neither any Junior had been offer regularization given a work charge status as per the cut off date not the Govt. has sanctioned any post in category of the applicant after Jan. 2003. It is further submitted that the regularization work charges status is subject to the availability of sanctioned post. It was held by Hon’ble Court CWP No. 481 of 1995 titled as State of H.P. V/s Dhyan Singh that the regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right but the same is subject to the availability of the sanctioned posts as per Annexure R-3. the detailed rely of this para has been in para 1 of preliminary submission and paras supra. (ix & x) The reply of these paras have been given in Paras supra. It is also submitted that the applicant will be considered for regularization/work charge status as per the availability of sectioned posts and as and when he completes the criterion of 10 years with 240 days in each calendar year.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he shall be free to make a representation supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to the respondent/competent authority within one month 3 from today and the said respondent shall consider the same and take final decision within further two months in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court. 5. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 17th March, 2011 (priti)