IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 16000 of 2008. Decided on: 23.06.2011. _______________________________________________ Mukhtiar Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Banbhushan Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent- department in October, 1992 and he has worked continuously with the respondent-department since then and has completed 240 days in each calendar year till November, 2000. However, his services have been regularised as Beldar vide Annexure A-1 on 10.1.2007. Since the petitioner has been 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - engaged before 31.12.1993, his case was required to be considered for regularization immediately after completion of 10 years’ service as per law laid down in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of Mool Raj Upadhyaya’s case (supra) for regularization immediately after completion of 10 years continuous service with effect from 1992, with all consequential benefits, within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 23, 2011. (sck).