JUDGMENT R.B.Misra, J The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 4.3.2010 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No. 2748/208 titled as Roshan Lal Vs. State of HP & anr, whereby the respondents/ government authorities were directed to consider the case of the respondent herein/ (writ petitioner) for his regularization to the post of Complaint Attendant within a period of six weeks from the date of judgment. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent/(writ petitioner) was initially appointed as Chowkidar with effect from 6.2.1985 to June, 1986. Thereafter, he worked as Mechanic Grade-II with effect from April 1988 to March, 1989 and Fitter 1st Grade with effect from April, 1989 to February, 1994. Thereafter, he worked as Complaint Attendant with effect from March, 1994 to March, 1995. After completing 10 years of his service while working to the post of Complaint Attendant, respondent/(writ petitioner), prayed for regularization under prevailing norms and also in reference to the decision of regularization made in the case of other similarly situated persons, namely, Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand. Krishan Singh was appointed as Fitter with effect from 6.4.1979 to October, 1982, and from November, 1982 to December, 1994 he worked as Mechanic, whereas Gopal Chand had worked as Job Keeper with effect from 1.9.1979 to 31.10.1983 and thereafter as Mechanic Grade-1 with effect from 1.11.1993 to 28.2.1994. Thereafter, with effect from 1.3.1994 to 17.12.1995 he had worked as Complaint Attendant. Giving benefit of their past services and treating the post of Fitter Grade-1 and Mechanic equivalent to the post of Complaint Attendant, Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand were regularized by the State. 3. As has been contended by the writ petitioner/respondent herein before learned Single Judge that discrimination has been made in his case as he has discharged more than 10 years of service, as such, was entitled to be considered for regularization. Learned Single Judge, after considering the case of the writ petitioner/respondent herein and after going through the pleadings and records, has given directions as indicated above. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find that State has not indicated any where that the case of the writ petitioner was in no way different from Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We find that State has not indicated any where that the case of the writ petitioner was in no way different from Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand. No parameter has been indicated to show that the service in Fitter Grade and Mechanic grade are not similar to the post of Complaint Attendant. The State has also not proved on record that the services rendered by the writ petitioner are not similar to that of Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand. We have seen the office order Annexue ‘A’ of the writ petition, wherein case of the writ petitioner has been recommended to the post of Complaint Attendant as that of similarly situated persons. We also notice that Krishan Singh is reflected at serial No.9 as a junior to the writ petitioner in Annexure ‘A’. 5. In these circumstances, we do not find any scope of interference in the verdict and directions given by learned Single Judge in the writ petition The LPA being devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the disposal of main appeal, application(s), if any, is also disposed of.