CWP(T) No. 3752/08 (OA 1278/96) 25.3.2009 Present: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i) That the respondents may be directed to re- engage the applicant forthwith on the same post and at the same place where he had been working prior to his removal from service on oral orders. ii) That the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the applicant with all consequential benefits.” Respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner was temporarily engaged for carrying out seasonal work. Since the work was of seasonal nature hence disengagement of the petitioner would not amount to retrenchment. Hence petitioner has no legally enforceable right which stands violated. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner’s case for regularisation, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 316, was considered, but however, since he did not fulfill the conditions for regularisation his case was rejected. That the petitioner was re-engaged on 17.10.1996 at Khaniara and is still working has been admitted by the respondents in the reply. -2- It is an admitted position that such of those persons who have been continuously working for more than 10 years are being regularised by the State and work charge status is being accorded to them in accordance with the State policy. No further orders can be passed in the present petition, save and except that if the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for regularisation the respondents shall consider his case, in terms of the policy and confer all benefits in accordance with the policy and law. With the aforesaid observations the petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 25, 2009 (PK)