IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No.: 14822 of 2008. Decided on: 11.8.2010 Tek Chand …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral) It is the case of the petitioner that he has only worked as Pipe Fitter Grade-I. According to the respondents, the post of Pipe Fitter Grade-I is a promotional post. Petitioner, as is evident from the muster rolls placed on record, has not only been working but also receiving the wages of a Pipe Fitter Grade-I. This fact, in fact, cannot be disputed in view of the material placed on the record by the petitioner. The State Government has issued various instructions from time to time with regard to regularization of daily wage/contingent paid workers. As per the instructions, dated 6.5.2000, the State has clarified that daily wage/contingent paid ______________________________ Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 workers, who have completed 8 years of service as on 31st March, 2000, with 240 days in each calendar year, shall be eligible for regularization. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the number of days for which the petitioner has worked. The petitioner, undisputedly, has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year for a continuance period of 8 years. 2. Petitioner’s regularization as Fitter Grade- II was not in consonance with the instructions issued by the respondent State, more particularly, when he had never worked as Fitter Grade-II. Hence, the present petition, to the extent orally prayed for, needs to be allowed. Direction is issued to the respondent State to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as a Pipe Fitter Grade-I with effect from the date when he was otherwise entitled to in accordance with the instructions. The respondents are directed to take appropriate consequential action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. August 11, 2010 (Sanjay Karol), (TILAK) Judge