IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2861 of 2009. Decided on: 23rd September, 2010. Man Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “(i) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. the year 2006 instead of the year 2007 with all consequential benefits as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. In the preliminary submissions at para 1, it is stated as follows: “That the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in Kohu/Ramshehar Ranges of Nalagarh Forest Division in 1997 on seasonal forestry works and has completed 240 days working in each calendar year as per year wise man days chart attached as Annexure R-1. From the attached man days chart it is evident that petitioner has completed 10 year continuously with more than 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1997 onward. The replying State H.P. has formulated policy/guidelines for regularization of eligible daily wagers vide H.P. Govt. Letter No.PER (AP)(C-B) (2)- 2/1997 dated 11.12.1997. Accordingly the services of petitioner was regularized vide Divisional Forest Officer Nalagarh Office Order No.156/2007-08 dated 16.10.2007 2 w.e.f. 22.9.2007, respectively, keeping in view the availability of sanctioned post, policy framed by the Govt. ibid and State seniority. The offer of appointment was issued to petitioner who in turn accepted the same without agitating for work charged status at that time and petitioner was regularized during 09/2007 vide Divisional Forest Officer Nalagarh Office Order ibid along with other eligible daily wagers. Hence, the petitioner is estopped to file and maintain the present petition.” 3. In case the petitioner has still any grievance with regard to the factual position, as above, it will be open to the petitioner either to approach the first respondent or to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd September, 2010 (Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge.