Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - (1.)The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a daily wage worker in Forest Range Arki, under Kunihar Division, Forest Circle, Bilaspur, in January, 1996. Since his initial appointment in the month of January, 1996, he had continuously been working with the respondent-Department and had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year, except for the years 2001 and 2002, when the respondents did not permit him to complete 240 days by disengaging his services for some days in each month. As per the petitioner, on account of these fictional breaks given to him by the respondents intentionally in the years 2001 and 2002, his right of regularization/being conferred upon work charge status, has been prejudiced as the fictional breaks were intentionally given to him by the respondents in the years 2001 and 2002 to ensure that he did not complete 240 days in each calendar year so that he could not avail the benefit of policy of the Government which envisaged regularization of services of a daily wage employee on completion of 8 years of service in case he has put 240 days service in each calendar year.
(2.)The petitioner relies upon the judgments passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 8145 of 2008, titled as Beli Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.06.2009 and CWP(T) No. 8143 of 2008, titled as Layak Ram vs. State of H.P. & Others, decided on 15.06.2009, in which judgments (copies of which stand appended by the petitioner with the petition), the fictional breaks of the petitioners therein were held to be unreasonable and arbitrary by this Court. According to the petitioner, he is similarly situated as the petitioners in said two cases, as in his case also, the fictional breaks, which were given to him in the years 2001 and 2002, were on account of arbitrary termination of his services for some time by the respondents and it was not as if he had abandoned the job. According to the petitioner, he was not allowed to complete 240 days in the years 2001 and 2002 despite the fact that work was available. He has accordingly prayed that the respondents be directed to condone the fictional breaks given to him in the years 2001 and 2002 and order regularization of his services on completion of 8 years service on daily wage basis with all consequential benefits.
(3.)In the reply filed to the writ petition by the respondents, though, they have admitted that the petitioner was working with Department since the year 1996, however, as per them, he could not earn minimum 240 days work during the calendar years 2001 and 2002, due to which, his case could not be considered for the purpose of regularization. As per respondents, the petitioner was not eligible for regularization as he had not completed minimum 8 years of service with the respondent-Department, which was an essential condition for regularization of services under the policy framed by the State Government. Further as per respondent-Department, no fictional breaks were given to the petitioner intentionally. Paras 3 and 6 of the reply filed by the respondents, which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, are quoted herein below:-
"Para 3. In reply to this para it is submitted that the petitioner was working with the respondent department since 1996 but he could not earn minimum 240 days during the calendar year 2001 and 2002 due to which this period could not be considered as regular period. The petitioner had regularly worked with the respondent department with statutory period of 240 days in each calendar year w.e.f. 2003 onwards.

Para 6. In reply to this para it is submitted that the contents of this para are denied, as it is baseless and without facts. The petitioner was engaged as daily waged labourer in Forest Range Arki of Kunihar Forest Division w.e.f. January, 1996, but the fact is that petitioner is habitual to attend/left the work on his sweet will. The petitioner is not eligible for his regularization as he has not completed 8 years of continuous service with respondent department which is essential for regularization under the policy framed by the State Government. It is also submitted that no fictional break has been given to the petitioner, which is apparently clear from the man days chart annexed by the petitioner in C.W.P. Therefore, the allegation leveled by the petitioner are baseless, frivolous and without any merit. The respondents have not made any illegality for depriving the petitioner of his rights, but it is the fault of the petitioner that he did not attend the job regularly hence he could not be considered for regularization."

On the strength of said averments, respondents-State resisted the claim of the petitioner.

;