IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 16058 of 2008. Decided on 26.5.2011 Bhuri Singh ..…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P and others. …. Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii) : “ (i) That the entire record of the case may kindly be summoned and after perusing the same the respondents may be directed to grant the work charge status to the applicant exactly after 10 years of service with more than 240 days of work in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case and then to pay the retrial benefits to the applicant i.e. a leave encashment, gratuity, insurance money and some other service benefits for the service rendered by him with the respondent-department with upto date interest. (ii) That after granting the relief No.1, the respondents may kindly be directed to count the half (50%) of the daily wage service into work charge/regular service and then grant him the pension & arrears with interest @ 7 ½ % per annum within 03 months of passing of order, in view of the judgment of our High Court in C.W.P 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 180/2001 titled as State of H.P. versus Sarab Dayal, decided by Division Bench on 19th July, 2007.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 6 (3) : “ That the applicant was regularized in accordance with the policy of respondent state formulated pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court Mool Raj Upadhayay’s case w.e.f. 1.1.1996 with clear stipulation after completion of 10 year of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.1995. Therefore, no person can be ordered to be regularized prior to this cut off date as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mool Raj Upadhayay’s case..” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed. 4. Though as per the respondents, services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1997 (deemed date 1.1.1996), yet on perusal of mandays chart Annexure A-1, it is evident that right from 1985 upto 1996, the petitioner had put in more than 240 days in each calendar year, which period comes to be of 12 years. As per Government policy in terms of Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs. State of H.P & Ors. 1994 Supp. (2) 3 SCC 316, a workman with ten years continuous service with 240 mandays in each calendar year is entitled for regularization. The requisite period of 10 years in this case was complete in 1994. Thus, the petitioner was entitled for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.1995 instead of 1.8.1997 (deemed date 1.1.1996). 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization on and w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and to pay him the consequential benefits, if any, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which interest @ 6 % per annum shall also be payable. 6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge May 26, 2011. cs