IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.9699 of 2008 Date of decision : August 24, 2011 Shiv Chand and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued the matter only on behalf of petitioner No.1 Shiv Chand. 2. Petitioner filed an Original Application before the then H.P State Administrative Tribunal, in the year 2003, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize him as worker from the year 2002, when he allegedly completed eight years service as daily wager, having worked for 160 days in every calendar year, from 1995 to 2002. His case was that as per Scheme of the Government, all those employees, who had served as daily wagers continuously for eight years upto 2002, with 160 man-days (for tribal areas), in every calendar year, were entitled to such regularization, but he had not been regularized. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Respondents, in their reply, took the plea that the petitioner had not completed the requisite number of days, i.e. 160 man-days, during the years 1995, 1996 and also in the year 2002 and, hence, he was not covered by the Scheme. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, with which a man-days Chart, signed by Range Officer, Sach (Pangi Division), has also been submitted. As per this man-days Chart, though the petitioner is shown to have worked for 190 days in 1995 and 191 days in the year 1996, yet in another Chart, submitted with the same supplementary affidavit, there is interpolation, with regard to the number of man-days, for which he worked during the year 2002. Number of days is shown to be 184, after overwriting. It appears that initially, the figure was 134. Respondents have also submitted man-days Charts with the reply as also with the counter affidavit to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit of the petitioner, per which the petitioner worked for 138 days only in the year 2002. Thus, the petitioner is not shown to have worked for 160 days, during each calendar year, for eight years, continuously and, hence, his case is not covered …3… under the Scheme, the benefit of which is sought to be derived by him. 6. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 24, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J