Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant letters patent appeal, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 9.7.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP(T) No.5752 of 2008 (OA No. 1032 of 1999), titled as Keshav Ram v. State of HP and Ors., whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing writ petition having been preferred by the petitioner-respondent herein (in short “petitioner”), held that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service from the date of his initial engagement for the period as mentioned in Annexure R-1 after ignoring the fictional breaks given by the respondents-appellants herein, from the year, 1994. Apart from above, learned Single Judge, also held the petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits of continuous service of period as mentioned herein above.

2. Succinctly, facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as daily wage (Baildar), in the year, 1994, and thereafter, he continued to render his services with the respondents-appellants herein (herein after referred to as the respondents). Petitioner by way of original application, preferred before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which was subsequently registered as CWP (T) No. 5752 of 2008, alleged that respondents-department gave artificial breaks to him solely with a view to prevent him from completing 240 days in each calendar year and deprived him the benefits of salary and leave of Sunday etc. Respondents while refuting aforesaid claim of the petitioner submitted before the court below that the petitioner never completed 240 days since 1994 and in every year, he remained willfully absent and reported for duty casually. To substantiate the aforesaid stand, respondents also placed on record mandays chart (Annexure R-1). Learned Single Judge, taking note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, allowed the petition having been preferred by the petitioner and granted him relief as has been taken note above.

3. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, while referring to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, strenuously argued that since learned Single Judge has failed to consider the reply filed by the present appellant while disposing of the petition, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and as such, impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. While referring to Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply, learned Additional Advocate General, further contended that it stands duly proved on record that there was shortfall of mandays ranging from 10 to 15 days during calendar year from 1994 to 1998 as far as completion of 240 days in one calendar year is concerned. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that onus, if any, to prove factum with regard to the completion of 240 days in a calendar year was upon the petitioner, not upon the respondent-department and as such, learned Single Judge, has fallen in grave error while condoning the shortfalls of the mandays ignoring the position explained in Annexure R-1. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Advocate General, prayed that instant appeal be allowed and judgment of learned Single Judge, be quashed and set-aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, representing the respondent herein (petitioner), while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, same is based upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Anr. V. Director General of Police, Assam and others, (2009) 6 SCC 611, wherein issue with regard to artificial breaks stands duly settled. Learned senior counsel further contended that judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Co