RAM SWARUP Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. He approached this court seeking regularization, in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 Learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has competed 240 days in each calendar year. The petitioner apprehends that the period, he was kept out of service, will not be taken into account in this regard. We do not find any basis for any such apprehension. Annexure A-3, award passed by the Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 173 of 1999 has been answered in favour of the petitioner in the following terms:-

(2.) Since the petitioner has been granted continuity in service, necessarily it has to be taken that the said period also, when he was kept out of service, since he has been granted continuity, shall be counted for having completed 240 days in the respective years.

(3.) With the above clarification, the appeal is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.