IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 1728 of 2008. Decided on: 12.07.2010. Kushal Chand and another. …Petitioners. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. Dev Raj Dev, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): A bare perusal of Annexure A-1 reveals that two posts of Peons were sanctioned in Municipal Council. The petitioners were appointed as Peons against these posts on 1st January, 1994. It is evident from Annexure A-2 that the petitioners had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 1994 till 2006. The State Government has issued a notification vide Annexure A-3, dated 11th April, 2007, whereby a decision has been taken to regularize the services of daily wagers who had completed more than eight years of service. A copy of the same was also endorsed by the Secretary (UD) to the Director (Urban Development). However, fact of the matter is that the petitioners were regularized as Peons vide orders dated 18.07.2007 and 18.8.2007, respectively. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. 2. The respondent No. 3 despite opportunity has not chosen to file any reply to the present petition. 3. Mr. Dev Raj Dev, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has brought to the notice of this Court that after coming into force the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Council Act, 1994, the status of Nagar Panchayat, Rohru has changed to Municipal Council, Rohru. 4. It is evident from the discussion made hereinabove that the petitioners had completed more than 10 years continuous service with more than 240 days in each calendar year and their services are required to be regularized after completion of 8 years of service. Moreover, two posts of Peons stood sanctioned as per Annexure A-1. The petitioners are only seeking regularization as per Annexure A-3. Mr. Dev Raj Dev, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the case of the petitioners was also favourably recommended to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 3. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as per Annexure A-3, immediately after completion of 8 years service as per mandays chart Annexure A-2 for the post of Peon instead of 18.7.2007 and 18.8.2007 with all consequential benefits within a period of ten weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 12, 2010. (bhupender)