The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of regularization to a daily waged worker, who fulfills the criteria for regularization as per the government's policy and when a post for regularization is available, is arbitrary and not sustainable in law.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - This petition was initially filed as Original Application before learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which after the abolition of the learned Tribunal has been transferred to this Court and registered as civil writ petition.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner was engaged as a Driver on daily wage basis in Hamirpur Division of the Forest Department of the State. It is not in dispute that since his engagement and till the filing of the original application, which now stands transferred to this Court and registered as writ petition, the petitioner had put in 240 days work in each calendar year.

3. Petitioner approached erstwhile Tribunal earlier by way of original application No. 4909 of 2017, titled as Suresh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, inter alia praying for his regularization as a Driver in the respondentdepartment, which original application stood disposed of by learned Tribunal in the following terms:-

"6. In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid CWP No. 2735 of 2010 and the connected matters, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority that subject to the above verification and on finding the applicant to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgment, if the same has attained finality and implemented, shall also be extended to him alongwith consequential benefits, if any, as per law, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this orderalongwith copy of the aforementioned judgment before the said authority by the applicant."

4. Vide order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the competent authority in compliance to the directions passed by learned Tribunal (appended with the petition as Annexure A-5), the competent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner of regularization, feeling aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, praying for the following reliefs:-

"i) That the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 Annexure A-5 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant as Driver with effect from the completion of daily wage service i.e. 01.01.2013 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.

iii) That the entire record of the case of the applicant may kindly be ordered to be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Tribunal.

iv) That any such or further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."

5. It is a matter of record that during the pendency of this petition, services of the petitioner have been regularized by the respondents w.e.f. 28.06.2021.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

7. During the course of hearing of the case, on 13.07.2021, this Court passed the following order:-

"Heard for some time. The Court stands informed that now the services of the petitioner have been regularized. Learned Additional Advocate General to inform the Court as to on which date, the post against which the petitioner has now been regularized, actually became available with the department. List on 23.07.2021 for continuation."

8. In compliance to above quoted order, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the instructions which so stand imparted to the office of learned Advocate General from the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, dated 22nd July, 2021, which are ordered to be taken on record as jointly prayed for by learned Counsel for the parties.

9. It is not in dispute that after the engagement of the petitioner and before his regularization by the resp