Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP No. 1324 of 2009-C Date of Decision : 12.12. 2011 Mulkh Raj, son of Shri Rattan Chand, R/o Village & Post Office Majherana, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through its Secretary (PWD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, U.S. Club Shimla, H.P. 3. Superintending Engineer, HPPWD, Circle Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 4. Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. …..Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Dy. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of present petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to consider him for the post of Work Inspector w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits. - 2 - 2. In fact, the petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar in August, 1990. As per respondents, he worked for 141 days in the year 1990. On completion of ten years qualifying service he was given work-charge status of Beldar on 1.1.2001 i.e. from retrospective date as Beldar, with all consequential benefits, as indicated in Office Order (Annexure R-1). 2. The respondents submit that he never worked as Work Inspector, therefore, he is not entitled for regularization as Work Inspector. 3. The petitioner contends that he is a graduate and has completed more than five years as Beldar. Thus, he may be considered for the post of Work Inspector as per the R&P Rules. 4. The ld. counsel for the petitioner states at Bar that the petitioner shall feel satisfied in case the respondents consider his case as per the R&P Rules read with letter No.PW/SEV/CE/16(1)/98-9454-58 dated 4.7.1998 (Annexure P-2) for the post of Work Inspector, against a vacancy. 5. Thus, there will be direction to respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner if he falls in the eligibility criteria under the rules and take a decision in the - 3 - matter within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms so also the pending application(s), if any. 12th December, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma Judge.