JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a). Direct the respondents to give seniority from the date when the petitioner was entitled for regularization/work charge status i.e. w.e.f. 1.04.1998, in accordance with law. b). Direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1998 alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The case of the petitioner is that he was initially engaged by respondent No.4 on muster-roll basis as a daily wage Beldar. He continued to serve as such under the supervision of Assistant Engineer, I.&P.H. Sub-Division, Joginder Nagar, upto 23.02.1996. On account of false FIR being registered against the petitioner, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 506, 323, 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Joginder Nagar, on 23.02.1996, the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner remained in custody till his acquittal by the learned Trial Court, i.e. 24.02.1998, when the petitioner and other co-accused were acquitted by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner were reengaged by respondent No.3 w.e.f. 17.03.1998 and he continued to serve as such till 13.06.1998, when his services were again terminated by the concerned Assistant Engineer without issuance of any show cause notice etc. He was reengaged subsequently. 3. Thereafter, an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner and the Reference which was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court stood adjudicated in terms of order dated 21.09.1998 (Annexure P2), which is quoted hereinbelow: “This reference has been received from the appropriate government on 19.5.1999. The petitioner right from 24.2.1996 to 24.2.1998 remained under detention on account of a criminal case. The parties have settled the matter amicably. The Executive Engineer, present in the court made a statement that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages for the period he remained under detention as per the reference, but he will be given continuity in accordance judgment of Hon’ble High Court as the respondent has appealed in the Hon’ble Court. Therefore, I order that the petitioner is not entitled to the back wages for the period he remained under detention but he shall be entitled for continuity in service, but subject to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the appeal. The reference is answered accordingly.” 4. Therefore, I order that the petitioner is not entitled to the back wages for the period he remained under detention but he shall be entitled for continuity in service, but subject to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the appeal. The reference is answered accordingly.” 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, thereafter, continued to serve respondent-Department and in between he raised a demand of his regularization by way of an industrial dispute. Upon a Reference being made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court, as to whether the demand raised by the petitioner through the President, B.M.S. Joginder Nagar for regularization w.e.f. 01.04.1998, when persons junior to him were so regularized, was proper and justified and if yes, from which date the aggrieved workman was entitled for regularization and with what reliefs. 5. The Reference was answered by the learned Labour Court in terms of Annexure P4, i.e. Award dated 12.12.2005, vide which learned Labour Court held that it was of the “settled view” that only on the High Court acquitting the accused, would he be entitled to claim that the period of his absence from duty from 24.02.1996 to 24.02.1998, for which period he remained in police as well as judicial detention, be, not reckoned as a break in service and only on such a verdict of his acquittal having been handed over by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, can he be said to have satisfied the conditions as contained in Ext.P14 and he would then obviously have the right to be considered for regularization of his service w.e.f. 31.03.1998. The Reference was answered accordingly. 6. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appeal which was filed against the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner and other accused was disposed of by this Court by upholding the judgment of acquittal, as was passed by the learned Court below in favour of the petitioner. The details of the appeal are Criminal Appeal No.281 of 1998, titled State of H.P. Versus Budhi Singh & others, decided on 12.05.2010. It is after the adjudication of the present appeal that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 7. Mr. The details of the appeal are Criminal Appeal No.281 of 1998, titled State of H.P. Versus Budhi Singh & others, decided on 12.05.2010. It is after the adjudication of the present appeal that this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 7. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the facts as have been narrated in the writ petition, there are two orders of the learned Labour, which are to the effect that the period of detention of the petitioner shall be counted for period of continuity in service, but subject to the decision of the High Court in the Criminal Appeal which stood filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner. As per the learned counsel, after the High Court decided the Criminal Appeal in favour of the petitioner, the act of the respondents of not granting regularization to the petitioner against the post of beldar w.e.f. 01.04.1998, i.e. the date when persons junior to the petitioner were regularized, is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He, accordingly submitted that the writ petition be allowed and respondent/State be directed to regularize the petitioner. Learned counsel has apprised the Court that services of the petitioner have otherwise being regularized as a beldar, vide Office Order dated 3372933, dated 28.01.2010. 8. The petition is opposed by the State, inter aliia, on the ground that as the petitioner actually did not work for the period when he was in detention, therefore, he is not entitled to have the said period counted for continuity in service. According to the State, the petitioner did not serve the State, till he was again reengaged w.e.f. 07.04.1998. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that as has been mentioned in Para4 of the petition, though on acquittal by the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner was reengaged on 07.04.1998 and he worked as such from 07.04.1998 to 17.06.1998, but thereafter, he was given break in service from 18.06.1998 to 30.06.1998. The petitioner reported for duties on 25.09.1998 and did not work during the month of July, 1998, August, 1998, upto 24.09.1998, as he abandoned the work. In this background, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization in service w.e.f. 01.04.1998. 9. In rebuttal, Mr. The petitioner reported for duties on 25.09.1998 and did not work during the month of July, 1998, August, 1998, upto 24.09.1998, as he abandoned the work. In this background, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization in service w.e.f. 01.04.1998. 9. In rebuttal, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not voluntarily leave the service at any stage and in fact, perusal of the averments made in Para4 of the reply would demonstrate that with regard to one break, the stand of the respondent-Department is that a break was given to the petitioner and as far as the allegation of the respondent that the petitioner abandoned the job, nothing has been placed on record to this effect to substantiate this contention. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 11. In the present case, the relief which has been prayed for by the petitioner is that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondent-State to order regularization of the petitioner/confer work charge status upon him w.e.f. 01.04.1998. The petitioner, as has been mentioned hereinabove was initially engaged as a beldar on muster-roll basis w.e.f. 21.08.1988. A perusal of Annexure P2, which is the order passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court on 21.09.1998, on a Reference which was made by the appropriate Government, demonstrates that the matter was reconciled by the parties in the Court and the Executive Engineer made a statement that the petitioner would not be entitled for back wages for the period he remained under detention as per the Reference, but he would be given continuity in service in accordance with the judgment of the High Court in the appeal, which was filed by the State against the acquittal of the petitioner. 12. Vide Annexure P4, while answering the reference made by the appropriate Government, on an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to his regularization, learned Labour Court in terms of award dated 12.02.2005 held that the period of absence form duties from 24.02.1996 to 24.02.1998 for which period the petitioner remained in police custody as well as in detention, will not be reckoned as a break in service only in case the judgment of acquittal in favour of the petitioner was so maintained by the High Court. 13. Thus, perusal of the pronouncements made by the learned Labour Court dated 21.09.1999 and 12.12.2005 clearly demonstrate that the period of detention of the petitioner was to be considered for continuity in service, provided the appeal which was filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court in the High Court was upheld. In fact, this was an agreed position between the parties. 14. Now, it is a matter on record that the judgment of acquittal which was passed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Sessions Court was upheld by this Court. 15. In this background, this Court is of the considered view that the right of the petitioner for claiming regularization has to be considered by taking into consideration the date on which he was initially engaged as beldar. The arguments of learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of the averments made in Para4 of the reply, in the considered view of the Court have no relevance for the adjudication of the present petition, for the reason that herein the petitioner is seeking his regularization/conferment of work charge status upon him w.e.f. 01.04.1998, whereas the averments which are contained in Para4 of the petition as well as reply pertain to the period post the month of April, 1998. 16. Accordingly, as there is not much dispute that as from the date when the petitioner was initially engaged on muster-roll basis w.e.f. 21.08.1988, he was in continuous service of the respondent-Department till his detention on account of an FIR being lodged against him and now, as this period is liable to be counted as continuity in service on account of his acquittal by this Court, by upholding the judgment of acquittal passed in his favour by the learned Sessions Court, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner be regularized/conferred the work charge status as from the date when incumbent junior to the petitioner, details whereof have been given in the petition, was regularized/conferred work charge status, with all consequential benefits including seniority. The monitory benefits, however, will be notional as from the date when the services of the petitioner are ordered to be regularized/conferment of work charge status upon him as upto three years before the date of filing of the writ petition and thereafter, the monitory benefits shall also in actual terms accrue upon the petitioner. 17. With these observations, this petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.