JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Petitioner in this case was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the year 1987 and has completed ten years’ continuous service in the year 1997. However, he has been regularized with effect from 13.1.1998. 3. Petitioner in this case was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the year 1983. Fictional breaks were given to the petitioner. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 756 of 1993. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the break period be counted towards seniority. However, the fact of the matter is that he has been regularized on 13.1.1998 instead of 1994. 4. Similarly, situate persons, who were junior to the petitioners, approached this Court seeking regularization from anterior date. An L.P.A. No. 198 of 2010 was preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by the respondent-Board. It was decided on 17.3.2011. Operative portion of the judgment dated 17.3.2011 reads thus: “2. However, since the respondent/writ petitioner has rendered 12 years of service from 1995 to 2007, the writ petitioner shall be granted the eligible benefits in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of H.P. and others, 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 316. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is thus found eligible for the pension, the same shall also be granted to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the competent authority. The judgment of the learned Single Judge stands modified to the above extent.” 5. Respondent-Board in its reply has stated that the judgment has been implemented only when Sh. Degar Singh filed the contempt petition. However, fact of the matter is that the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 198/2010 stands implemented. Petitioners being similarly situate are also entitled to the same treatment and their cases were also required to be considered by the respondent-Board immediately after the completion of ten years of service, i.e. 1.1.1997 and 1.1.1994, respectively. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, both the writ petitions are allowed. Petitioners being similarly situate are also entitled to the same treatment and their cases were also required to be considered by the respondent-Board immediately after the completion of ten years of service, i.e. 1.1.1997 and 1.1.1994, respectively. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners in view of the judgment rendered in LPA No. 198/2010 for regularization with effect from 1.1.1997 and 1.1.1994, respectively, within a period of ten weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. No costs.