IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7294 of 2008. Date of decision: 25.10.2010. Manjeet Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “That the memorandum/order dated 18.1.2000 (Annexure/A-2) issued by the respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and the respondents may please be directed to allow the applicant to discharge his duties on work charged post of Jr. Technician pump operator at the same place with continuity of service and arrears of pay.” 2. In the reply, it is stated as follows:- “In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant has no cause at all to maintain the present application as the mistake committed by any officer is always within the competency of the department to be rectified as and when the mistake is brought to the notice of competent authority. The facts of the case in the present case is that though the Govt. had formulated the policy to regularize the daily rated workman who have completed the ten year of continuous service in terms of the order - 2 - passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mool Raj Upadhya versus State of H.P., wherein it was clearly stipulated that workman who have completed 240 days in each calendar year and have completed 10 years of continuous service shall be entitled for regularization. This policy has further been relaxed by the Govt. of H.P. vide notification dated 19.6.99, whereby it was decided to regularize the daily rated workman who have completed 9 years of continuous service as on 31.3.1998 with minimum 240 days in each calendar year with effect from 1.4.1998 and this notification was misunderstood by the present replying respondent and could not give consideration of 240 days to be completed in each calendar year and has inadvertently taken the year 1989 as having 240 days, whereas the fact is that the applicant was not engaged in the year 1990 and he had worked as a Beldar for 151 days and as a Pump Operator for 214 days (Copy of mandays attached as Annexure R-1) as such he was not entitled to be regularized as a work charge Pump Operator with effect from 1.4.1998 in term of the policy hence the replying respondent has withdrawn the order of regularization hence the order of regularization in accordance with rules and law. In this respect the respondent would like to draw the attention of this Hon’ble Tribunal to the notification dated 19.6.1999 (Annexed as Annexure R2) and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CWP 787/87 Annexure R3, hence the wrong order passed by the Officer mistakenly is always to be rectified and is not challengeable before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Since the formulation of policy is an executive and administrative matter and the discretion to formulate and withdrew the same lies with the Govt. as such any action taken by the respondent department under these guidelines is not challengeable before this Hon’ble Tribunal being an executive and administrative matter. The applicant can not challenge the formulation and enforcement of the policy as - 3 - a matter of right. The applicant has only the right to be regularized with minimum of 10 years of continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year in terms of the Mool Raj Upadhaya case. Since the applicant had not completed 10 years of continuous service by then hence the present application may kindly be dismissed.” 3. In case the petitioner has any dispute with regard to the factual position stated above, it will be open to him to approach the second respondent in which case the matter will be duly considered by the second respondent in accordance with law and justice within a period of four months. 4. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 25, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem) Judge.