IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.11278 of 2008. Decided on: 21.12.2010. Gian Chand. ……….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.Lalit Sharma, 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 been appointed in 1994 and has completed more than 160 days in each calendar year, but till date his case for regularization has not been considered. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-1. It is evident from Annexure R-1 that the petitioner was appointed in 1994 and had completed 160 days in each calendar year up to 2004. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, his client has discharged duties of Mate and not Beldar. 2. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents-State to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization after seeking his option in view of judgment rendered by this Court in Gauri Dutt versus State of Himachal Pradesh, within a period of two months after 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No. 2 production of certified copy of the judgment by the petitioner, with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) December 21, 2010. Judge (krt)