IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8517 of 2010 Decided on: 21st February, 2011. Harbans Kaur vs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give regularization to the petitioner as Sweeper with all consequential benefits as per ratio laid down in State of H.P Vs. Gauri Dutt and in view of the ratio laid down in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. as per the 8 years policy as and when she completed 8 years of service with 240 days since she was engaged on 1.5.1994 and till 11.12.2006, she has served the respondent department for about 12 years as daily waged Sweeper whereas, the petitioner was entitled for regularization on 1.5.2002 with all consequential benefits such as; seniority, arrears of pay, promotion etc. whereas the respondent department has given regularization as Sweeper to the petitioner w.e.f. 11.12.2006 vide Annexure P-1. 2 ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to give the regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.2002 when she has completed 8 years of service, as has been done by the respondent department in the case of similarly situated persons. iii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for pension and pensionary benefits in view of the fact that she was entitled to get regularization on 1.5.2002”. 2. According to the petitioner, the case is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others. It is for the petitioner to point out the same before the second respondent. In the event of the petitioner filing representation along with a copy of the judgment referred to above, the matter will be duly examined by the second respondent after verifying the facts and appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter will be taken within another four months. 3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s) if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st February, 2011 ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (rana/pankaj) Judge.