JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, State has challenged order, dated 05.10.2015, passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 584 of 2015, titled as Arjun Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others, which reads as under: "The applicant had been daily wage beldar with the respondents. The respondents in their response admit that the applicant had completed 240 days of presence in each calendar year from 1995 to 2002. The daily wage workers, who have completed 8 years service are to be regularized. The respondents further admit that the applicant was regularized with effect from 21.9.2007. Such status ought to have been conferred cfter completion of 8 years, that is, with effect from 1.1.2003. As such, the original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate orders of regularization of the applicant with effect from 1.1.2003. 2. The pending misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of. " 2. Learned Advocate General has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as while passing the impugned directions, learned Administrative Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that upon completion of 8 years, the only right which stood conferred upon the applicant was of being considered for the purpose of regularization as per his seniority and no direction could have been passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal of regularizing the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2003, i.e., the date when he completed 8 years of service. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no perversity with the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, because the order of regularization after 8 years of service has been passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal strictly in consonance with the regularization Policy of the State, which was in vogue at the relevant time. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the records of the case. 5. In our considered view, there is merit in the contention of learned Advocate General. Policy of regularization after 8 years of service of the State Government cannot be so construed that on completion of 8 years of service as a daily wager, a workman is automatically entitled for regularization of service. 5. In our considered view, there is merit in the contention of learned Advocate General. Policy of regularization after 8 years of service of the State Government cannot be so construed that on completion of 8 years of service as a daily wager, a workman is automatically entitled for regularization of service. The right which stands conferred upon a workman under such a Policy is that now he has a right to be regularized as per his seniority, subject to availability of vacancy. This important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Administrative Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 6. There is on record a regularization Policy issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh, dated 9 th June, 2006, which provides that daily waged/contingent paid workers, who have completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified otherwise for the tribal areas) as on 31.03.2004, may be considered for regularization against the available vacancies in various Departments. It is further mentioned in the said Policy that where the vacancies did not exist in the Departments, the question of creation of posts for regularization of such eligible daily wagers may be considered on merit on a case to case basis by the Government. The regularization under the said Policy is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein, which we are quoting hereinbelow: "(i) Daily waged/contingent paid workers who are completed 8 years of continuous service (with a minimum of 240 days in a calendar year except where specified otherwise for the tribal areas) as on 31.3.2004 may be considered for regularization against the available vacancies in various departments and the terms & conditions for such regularization shall be governed as per Annexure A. (ii) 8 years of continuous service is only an eligibility criteria and regularization shall be only from prospective effect i.e., after the date the orders of regularization is issued after completion of codal formalities. (iii) The daily waged/contingent paid workers being considered for such regularization shall possess minimum educational qualification as prescribed in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of such post. (iii) The daily waged/contingent paid workers being considered for such regularization shall possess minimum educational qualification as prescribed in the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of such post. (iv) In case of a Daily Waged/Contingent Paid worker, who has worked for less than 8 years on higher wages, on a higher pay scale post, he will be considered for regularization by combining the service both in the lower scale post and higher scale post but he shall be regularized on a lower post because for regularization on a higher post, 8 years complete daily wage service on the higher pay scale post shall be essential. (v) The daily waged/contingent paid workers may be regularized against the posts/vacancies of relevant categories purely on seniority basis subject to rejection being unfit and by doing so in case any roster point for reserved/feeder category remains under utilized, these shall be made good in future recruitment by filling up the backlog first. (vi) Such daily waged/contingent paid workers, who were within the age limit prescribed for direct recruitment at the time of engagement on daily wages basis, may be given relaxation in age limit while regularizing their services, if they have crossed the maximum age limit as prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. (vii) Such daily waged/contingent paid workers, who have been engaged without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, may be given relaxation while regularizing their services. (viii) The Department(s) are not required to make prior consultation with the H.P. Public Service Commission for regularisation of services in case of those posts which fall within the purview of the H.P. Public Service Commission. (ix) The seniority of the "Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers" as are required under this policy vis-a-vis employee appointed on regular basis shall be determined on the date of issue of these policy instructions. The inter-se- seniority of such "Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers" shall be determined in accordance with order of regularization of such daily wager based on seniority as daily wager. (x) There shall be no resultant vacancy by way of such regularization because such vacancies shall be abolished. " 7. The inter-se- seniority of such "Daily Waged/Contingent Paid Workers" shall be determined in accordance with order of regularization of such daily wager based on seniority as daily wager. (x) There shall be no resultant vacancy by way of such regularization because such vacancies shall be abolished. " 7. A perusal of these instructions clearly demonstrates that post completion of 8 years of service, regularization is not automatic and it is subject to availability of vacancy and that 8 years of continuous service is only an eligibility criteria and regularization shall be only from prospective effect, i.e., from the date of order of regularization is issued. In this view of the matter also, the order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal is not sustainable. 8. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.10.2015, passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 584 of 2015 titled as Arjun Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others. Petition stands disposed of, so also miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.