IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 13753 of 2008. Decided on: 06.08.2010. __________________________________________________________ Rajinder Paul. … 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. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): The petitioner was appointed as per Annexure R-1 in the year 1985 as Beldar. He has worked in this capacity from 1985 till 1992. However, there is break in 1988 and 1989. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner had been continuously working as Complaint Attendant as per Annexure R-1 with effect from 1993 and had completed 240 days in each year. He has been regularised as Beldar in the year 2002. It is evident from Annexure R-1 that the petitioner has continuously worked from 1993 till 2002 as Complaint Attendant. In these circumstances, his case ought to have been considered for regularization as Complaint 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Attendant and not as Beldar, that too, with effect from 2000 when he has completed eight years. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularizations as Complaint Attendant immediately after completion of eight years from 1993 onwards. He shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 06, 2010. (sck/k.attri).