IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6128 of 2008 Date of decision: 1.11.2010 Tara Chand ….. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P.& Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : None. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs in the petition:- (1). That the respondents be directed to appoint the applicant as Driver-cum-operator Dozer-cum-Air Oppressor from the date prior to his juniors including Shri Bhagat Ram and Ratti Ram were promoted as such. (2) That in view of his performing the duties of Driver-cum- Operator since 26.10.89, his services may be ordered to be regularised as such in view the Supreme Court’s pronouncement and assurances and declared policy of the Respondent-Government. 2. In the preliminary submission No.1, the respondents have submitted as follows:- Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… “In fact the applicant was engaged initially in the respondent deptt. On Muster Roll basis on daily wages on 26.12.79 and thereafter he worked in different categories such as beldar and cleaner upto October 1989. He was further given the Job of Asstt. Operator-cum-Helper from 26.10.89 and after computing the service rendered by the applicant in various categories he was regularised in the lower grade on 23.1.95 w.e.f. 1.1.94 according to the class No.4 of the regularization policy/scheme of the respondent State and the offer was also accepted by the applicant without any protest. Thereafter the claim of the applicant that his services were not regularised in higher grade is not genuine and can not be accepted in view of the policy/scheme of the Govt. according to which the worker has to complete to 10 years or so continuous service in the same category. Otherwise to the corresponding lowest grade. Hence the present petition is not maintainable being hopeless by barred by limitation as well as an act deed conduct & acquiance.” 3. In paragraph6(5) of the reply, it is stated as follows:- “That the contents of sub-para (5) of the application are not admitted hence denied emphatically. No junior persons to him has been promoted to the post of Drivers. In fact these workers have also been regularised from the daily wager on the same post for which they were eligible according to the Police/Scheme of the Govt.” 4. The petitioner in the affidavit dated 29.4.2001 has given his age 51 years. The case of the petitioner for regularization is covered by judgment in Gauri Dutt & ors. v. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 366. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of Gauri Dutt case (supra) within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment to the competent authority by the office of learned Advocate General. The petition stands disposed of. …3… 5. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. November 1, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.