IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3259 of 2011. Date of decision 12th September, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ratti Ram. Versus State of H.P. & others. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J. K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed not to give fictional/artificial breaks to the petitioner henceforth and the action of the respondents be held illegal by issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus. ii) That the artificial/fictional breaks given by the respondents and consequent upon the shortfall of days for 240 days may be condoned and the services of the petitioner may be ordered to be regularized.” 2. It is submitted that the petitioner has been given artificial breaks only with the motive of denying regularization. On 16.5.2011, this Court passed the following order:- “In case there is work available and in case the service of the petitioner is required for the work, the petitioner shall not be given artificial breaks.” 3. It is also made clear that after dis-engaging the services of the petitioner, no junior shall be retained. There will be a direction to the respondents that the case of the petitioner shall be 2 considered in the light of the policy regarding regularization, as and when, the petitioner completes the required mandays. In case the petitioner has still any grievance on artificial breaks as given only to deny the regularization, it will be open to him to either point out the same before the higher authority or initiate appropriate action under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice September 12, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (kck) Judge