IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 11375 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.08.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Prem Lal. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. R.D. Kaundal, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. AG. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That the respondents may be ordered to give the work charged status to the applicant with effect from 1.1.2000 the date from which the applicant completed 10 years of service in accordance with Mool Raj Upadhaya V/s State of Himachal Pradesh with all the benefits incidental thereof such as arrears of pay and seniority etc.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide relevant portion of para 1 of the preliminary submissions: “In consequence to the said process the applicant was offered appointment in the category of work charged brought into regular cadre in the pay scale of 2620-4140 prospectively and further directed to join with Assistant Engineer Jutog sub-division. To the said offer the applicant had also accepted without any protest on 14-3-2003(F.N.) thereby leaving to the applicant no cause of action to agitated the same on the alleged averment/ground, that he completed 10 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... years on 31-12-2000 as such his services required to be regularized w.e.f. the date he completed said criteria. To the same it submitted that when the posts was sanctioned he was offered the same and he also joined. Hence upon sanction of Govt. and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court on 9.4.2003, annexure R-3 and by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A(D) 52/04 dated 28-6-2004 annexure R-3/A no cause of action accrued to him. Hence in the light of these submissions, the relief claimed by the applicant in the para 7 of retrospective benefit of regularization w.e.f. 10 years of completion is not maintainable accordingly the present O.A. deserves dismissal in the interest of justice, as neither any legal or equity right of applicant have ever been infringed in any manner nor any cause of action whatsoever accrues to the applicant to file and maintain the present O.A.” 3. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before the respondents/competent authority by way of an appropriate representation alongwith copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within further three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 29th August, 2011 (virender)