Sandeep Sharma, J. - (1.)(Through Video Conferencing) Precisely, the facts which are relevant for adjudication of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the parties, are that petitioner was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the month of September, 1987 and as such, he continued to serve the department till the year 1992, whereafter, break in service was given to him. Though, petitioner was re-engaged in the year 1998, but since his services were retrenched on 4th June, 2001 without complying with the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, he raised an industrial dispute. Since, conciliation inter se parties failed, the appropriate Government made a reference bearing No. 21 of 2004, to Himachal Pradesh Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, however, the fact remains that claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and as such, he was compelled to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 2669 of 2008, laying therein challenge to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 1.7. 2010, set aside the award dated 20.7.2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and held petitioner to be in continuous service as daily waged Beldar under the respondents. While holding the petitioner to be in continuous service as daily wage Beldar, this Court held the petitioner not entitled for back-wages.
(2.)It appears that even after passing of the aforesaid judgment, respondents failed to re-engage the petitioner and as such, he was compelled to file the contempt petition before this Court, however, during the pendency of the contempt petition, an office order dated 11.5.2011 was issued by respondent No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner were regularized as Beldar in the pay scale of Rs. 4900-10680 (Annexure A-2). Since, vide order date 11.5.2011, respondents did not regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1998, when he completed his 10 years regular service from the date of his initial appointment, he was compelled to approach the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 1372 of 2015, which now stands transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA No.5174 of 2019, praying therein following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. the year 1998, i.e. immediately on completion of his 10 years daily waged services as Beldar or in the alternative, in the above of any vacancy, to confer the work charge status upon the applicant,w.e.f. year 1998 upto the date of regularization.

(ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to grant consequential benefit like seniority to the applicant w.e.f. the year 1998."

(3.)Having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds considerable force in the claim of the petitioner that since he was held to be in continuous service w.e.f. July 1987 vide judgment dated 1.7.2010, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2669/2008, his services are required to be regularized w.e.f. September, 1997.
;