IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 14177 of 2008. Decided on: 16.06.2011. ___________________________________________ Narat Pal. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed Original Application before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal bearing No.2563 of 2005, for the redressal of his grievance. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Secretary of the respondent-Board. The Secretary of the respondent-Board has passed a detailed order vide Annexure P-5, dated 28th February, 2006. The concluding portion of the same reads thus:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - “The applicant will become eligible for regularization as Clerk after completion of 10 years service as a daily wage clerk on 30-10- 2006, as per the existing policy of the H.P. Govt. as well as H.P. State Electricity Board. It may thus not be feasible to consider the case of the applicant for his regularization at this stage. AND WHEREAS the case of the applicant for the post of clerk can only be considered after completion of 10 years as per the policy of the Board as well as H.P. Govt. as per reference referred to above.” 2. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since his client has already completed 10 years of continuous service as on 30th October, 2010, he is required to be regularised as per order dated 28th February, 2006 3. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, if not already considered, with effect from 30th October, 2006, on the basis of order dated 28th February, 2006, within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of the judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 16, 2011. (sck).