IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No.1731, 1732, 1733, 1736, 1742, 1743, 1744 of 2011 Decided on: Apr. 1, 2011. CWP No.1731 of 2011 Govind Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. CWP No.1732 of 2011 Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. and anr. CWP No.1733 of 2011 Raju Ram vs. State of H.P. and anr. CWP No.1736 of 2011 Som Dutt vs. State of H.P. and anr. CWP No.1742 of 2011 Krishan Singh vs. State of H.P. and anr. CWP No.1743 of 2011 Gian Chand vs. State of H.P. and anr. CWP No.1744 of 2011 Jagdish Chand vs. State of H.P. and anr. ________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr.R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners claim regularization on completion of 8 years daily waged service. As rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the regularization can be considered only subject to the availability of vacancy and the same has to be strictly in accordance with the seniority. According to 2 the petitioners, many of their juniors have been granted regularization and even after 12 years, their cases have not been considered. 2. There will be a direction to the second respondent/competent authority to look into the grievances of the petitioners in each case, verify the facts and take appropriate action in accordance with law and the Policy, without discriminating the petitioners. We also make it clear that in case any junior to the petitioners has been wrongly given regularization, it will be open to the second respondent/competent authority to take appropriate corrective steps with a notice to the affected party. Needful action in the cases of the petitioners, as above, shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned before the second respondent. 3. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice Apr.1, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.