IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11242of 2008. Decided on: 21.12.2010. Kewal Singh. ……….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner. : Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M.Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he had worked for 10 years and has completed 240 days in each calendar year. However, his case has not been considered for regularization.Mr. Vijay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-1. It is evident from the man days chart that the petitioner has only worked continuously from 1994 and has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. Mr. Vijay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is still working and has completed more than 240 days. 2. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents- State to consider the case of the petitioner, if not already considered for regularization, if he had completed 10 years service with 240 days in each 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. calendar year, after the production of certified copy of judgment by the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) December 21, 2010. Judge (krt) 2