JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The Director, Urban Development, Himachal Pradesh has accorded the permission to engage two drivers on contract basis through Employment Exchange after observing all the codal formalities on 13.03.2000. In sequel thereto, the petitioners were interviewed and appointed Drivers w.e.f. 09.08.2000. The petitioners, though have put in about 12 years service, but their services have not been regularized. Case of the petitioners has also been recommended by the respondent No. 4 for regularization. 2. The stand of the respondent-State in the reply is that the case of the petitioners was considered for regularization by the Screening Committee constituted by the Department on 04.12.2009, but their services could not be regularized due to non-availability of vacant posts. It is also averred in the reply that the case of the petitioners alongwith other similar category of employees of the Urban Local Bodies in the State has already been taken up with the State Government for creation of posts. The petitioners have been working as Drivers on contract basis for about 12 years. The respondents should have taken timely steps for regularizing their services. It amounts to unfair labour practice to engage an employee for a period of 12 years and not regularize him. 3. It is evident from Annexure R-1, dated 06.02.2012, that the incumbents who were engaged after the petitioners in N.P. Sunni, M.C. Rampur, M.C. Naina Deviji, M.C. Una and N.P. Sarkaghat, have been regularized. Thus, the petitioners have been discriminated against by the respondents. 4. The respondents (State) has also admitted that the petitioners have already completed 8 years continuous service with 240 days in each calendar months in the month of March, 2009. 5. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents (State) has issued fresh notification, whereby the incumbents who have worked continuously for a period of six years, are required to be regularized. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the proposal of respondent No. 2 for creation of posts within a period of three months from today and thereafter, the respondents No. 2 to 4 shall take all necessary steps towards regularization of the petitioners as per policy, within a further period of six weeks. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the proposal of respondent No. 2 for creation of posts within a period of three months from today and thereafter, the respondents No. 2 to 4 shall take all necessary steps towards regularization of the petitioners as per policy, within a further period of six weeks. It is made clear that if no steps are taken to create the posts within a period of three months, the petitioners shall be deemed to have been regularized as drivers, with all consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.