IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8805 of 2010 a/w CWP Nos. 8815, 8816, 8818, 8819, 8822 to 8826, 8838 to 8847, 8850, 8851 & 8855 of 2010. Decided on: 21st February, 2011. 1. CWP No. 8805 of 2010 Sunil Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 8815 of 2010 Vijay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 8816 of 2010 Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4. CWP No. 8818 of 2010 Om Chand vs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 8819 of 2010 Vinod Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. 6. CWP No. 8822 of 2010 Meera Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. 7. CWP No. 8823 of 2010 Gandhi Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. 8. CWP No. 8824 of 2010 Inder Pal vs. State of H.P. & ors. 9. CWP No. 8825 of 2010 Vinod Kumar vs. State of H.P. & ors. 10. CWP No. 8826 of 2010 Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. & ors. 11. CWP No. 8838 of 2010 Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & ors. 12. CWP No. 8839 of 2010 Raghu Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. 13. CWP No. 8840 of 2010 Ramesh Chand vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2 14. CWP No. 8841 of 2010 Partap Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. 15. CWP No. 8842 of 2010 Jagdish Chand vs. State of H.P. & ors. 16. CWP No. 8843 of 2010 Lajja Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. 17. CWP No. 8844 of 2010 Jiwan Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. 18. CWP No. 8845 of 2010 Kahan Singh vs. State of H.P. & ors. 19. CWP No. 8846 of 2010 Kam Raj vs. State of H.P. & ors. 20. CWP No. 8847 of 2010 Om Parkash vs. State of H.P. & ors. 21. CWP No. 8850 of 2010 Soma Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. 22. CWP No. 8851 of 2010 Savitri Devi vs. State of H.P. & ors. 23. CWP No. 8855 of 2010 Raju Ram vs. State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners in these cases are aggrieved since they are not given regularization on completion of 10 years of service. According to the petitioners, some of their juniors have been regularized. The learned Deputy Advocate General points out that people, who have been 3 regularized, had necessarily completed the required number of years of continuous service. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court, their continuity in service has been declared and protected. The interference of this court is only with regard to back wages. If the findings with regard to continuity in service, as awarded by the Labour Court, have become final necessarily for all purposes, except back wages, the same have to be treated as continuous. If that be so, in case any junior to the petitioners, who had not been retrenched and in case, such a person has been granted regularization, the petitioners are also entitled for regularization with effect from the date of regularization the juniors. As rightly pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General, if the regularization granted to the juniors is wrongly done, it will be certainly open to the Department to take appropriate corrective steps with notice to such affected party. 2. All these factual aspects are to be verified by 2nd/3rd/4th respondent, as the case may be. As far as this court is concerned, what is required is only a declaration of the legal position regarding continuity of service. In case the award passed by the Labour Court regarding continuity in service has become final, except for the purpose of back wages, the same should be treated as continuous for all purposes including regularisation. 3. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:- The 2nd/3rd/4th respondent, being the competent authority, shall examine the case of each petitioner after verification of facts in light of what is held, as above, and take appropriate action in accordance with 4 law within four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of award passed by the Labour Court and a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner concerned. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st February, 2011 ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), (rana/pankaj) Judge.