JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. LPA No.305 of 2010 and CMP(M) No.1466 of 2010: The appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment, dated 6.4.2010, passed in CWP (T) No.15703 of 2008. There is a huge delay in filing the appeal. In the nature of order we proposed to pass, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. The writ petitioner claimed regularization. It is seen from the judgment that there was a joint representation that the case is covered by the judgment of this court passed in CWP (T) No.10220 of 2008 titled Phool Maya Vs. State of H.P. and others. However, in the operative portion of the judgment there is a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Mool Raj Upadhaya Vs. State of H.P and others, 1994 Supp. (2) SCC, 316. Apparently, it is a mistake. Going by the facts, the case is not covered by the judgment passed in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s case and if at all, it would be covered only by Phool Maya’s case (supra). 2. Therefore, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in light of the judgment passed in CWP (T) No.10220 of 2008, titled Phool Maya Vs. State of H.P. and others. It is clarified accordingly and it is made clear that the case of the writ petitioner shall be considered in light of the decision of this Court in Phool Maya’s case (supra) and eligible benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner, if not already disbursed, within a period of three months from today. Subject to the above clarification, delay petition is dismissed and the LPA is also dismissed.