ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: - “a) That termination order/letter Annexure A3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the services of the applicant with all consequential benefits such as seniority, arrears etc. and the original application may kindly be allowed. b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the applicant after completion of 6 or 8 years as per policy of the state after condoning the fictional breaks period or if no policy is there, then to direct the respondents to formulate a policy being a model state; so the Constitutional mandates provided for the welfare state be fulfilled and justice be done. c) That the respondents may kindly be directed not to give fictional breaks to the applicant and allow him to do work throughout the year and the consequential benefits of the regularization of fictional breaks may also be given to applicant as per law” 2. The petitioner had originally filed O.A. No. 2675 of 2016 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2016 and after the abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application of the petitioner was transferred to this Court and the same was registered as CWPOA No. 7632 of 2019. By virtue of an interim direction issued by H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, petitioner continued in the job. 3. The case of petitioner is that he was engaged as daily wagelabourer/Contract Beldar in the year 2007 in Community Fruit Processing-cum-Training Centre, (Nagaan), District Hamirpur, H.P (for short, ‘the Centre’). He had rendered continuous service with 240 days in each calendar year from the date of his engagement till the date of filing of the petition. The respondents had regular work in the Centre and petitioner had been assigned multiple jobs from time to time viz preparation of pickles, jams, jelly etc, to impart training to local residents, to clean and maintain the premises, attend counter sales, gardening work and duty as watchman. The working hours have been from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. 4. Petitioner has sought relief of regularization as per the regularization policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed till date. 5. The working hours have been from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. 4. Petitioner has sought relief of regularization as per the regularization policy of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed till date. 5. Respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was engaged on hourly basis in the year 2007 and he had been paid for the work performed by him on hourly basis. Petitioner was not entitled to regularization, as his engagement was not on Muster Roll basis. The regularization policy would not be applicable in the case of petitioner, who was engaged on hourly basis. 6. I have heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. On 24.8.2022, the respondents were directed to produce records pertaining to the service of petitioner. In compliance to said order, the record was produced on 14.9.2022 and on its perusal, it has been found that the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year since 1.1.2008 till 2021 and even in this current year also, he has completed 242 days till 31.8.2022. The only contention of respondents is that the petitioner was engaged on hourly basis and not on daily basis. This distinction is clearly superfluous. Respondents with their reply have annexed the documents, reflecting working hours of the petitioner. As per these documents, petitioner has been rendering service for seven hours every day and his employment was continuous. In these circumstances, the conversion of hours into days can clearly be said to be unjustified or illegal. 8. This Court in CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019, titled as, Vikram Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, while dealing with identical issue has held as under:- “10. In CWPOA No. 1833, the respondents had raised same objections as raised in the present case. The Coordinate Bench after perusing the official records produced by the respondents held as under:- “4. In the aforesaid documents, which are part of the record of the Government, petitioner, Smt. Asha Devi has been shown to be working as daily wager w.e.f.12.3.2001 and she has been shown to have worked for more than 240 days in the years, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,2008 and 2009. In the aforesaid documents, which are part of the record of the Government, petitioner, Smt. Asha Devi has been shown to be working as daily wager w.e.f.12.3.2001 and she has been shown to have worked for more than 240 days in the years, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,2008 and 2009. Though, in the aforesaid document alteration with pen has been made to make it appear that this seniority list-cum-year-wise days of engagement of daily wagers also pertains to seasonal workers, but learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute that all the persons named in this list were engaged on daily wage basis and if it is not then how the name of petitioner Smt. Asha Devi came to be reflected in the afore list, if she was given appointment on hourly basis. Besides above, Page No.34 of the record, as detailed hereinabove, reveals that in the years 2001 to 2015 petitioner worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In this document, it has been nowhere mentioned that petitioner herein was appointed on hourly basis and as such, there appears to be merit in the claim of the petitioner that she had been working regularly on daily wages since her initial appointment in the year, 2001. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General made available some documents to demonstrate that petitioner herein had been working on hourly basis not on daily wage basis, however, having carefully perused the aforesaid documents, which otherwise appear to be a bill raised by In-charge of Fruit Processing-cum-Training Centre, Nurpur with regard to payment of the workers, reveals that petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons had been working for 7-8 hours every day, meaning thereby they like other daily wagers were also performing duties for the whole day and not on hourly basis. Needless to say, Government servant is obliged to work for 7 to 8 hours i.e.10 to 5 PM in the government offices of State of Himachal Pradesh. Needless to say, Government servant is obliged to work for 7 to 8 hours i.e.10 to 5 PM in the government offices of State of Himachal Pradesh. Though, having carefully scrutinized the entire record, as has been taken note hereinabove, this Court is fully convinced that petitioner had been rendering her services from the date of her initial appointment till date on daily wage basis, but still if aforesaid documents i.e. bills placed on record are taken into consideration even then petitioner cannot be said to be working on hourly basis, especially when respondents have not been able to refute/dispute that petitioner had been working for 7 to 8 hours per day. 5. Faced with the aforesaid situation, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General argued that even as per policy of regularization petitioner is/was firstly required to be converted to daily wage basis from part time and thereafter she can claim benefit of regularization. But this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission made on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General, since it stands duly established on record that from the date of her initial appointment petitioner has been working on daily wage basis, there is/was no requirement if any for respondents to first convert her services from part time to daily wage so as to make her entitled for claiming benefit of regularization in terms of policy of regularization framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed and respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner in terms of the regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the year, 2009, from the date she had completed 8 years daily wage service with 240 days in each calendar year. The consequential/ financial benefits shall however be restricted to three years prior to filing of the Original Application No. 374 of 2016” 9. Thus, the case of petitioner herein is squarely covered by the judgment, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019. The reasons detailed therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the present case. 10. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed. His termination is set aside. Thus, the case of petitioner herein is squarely covered by the judgment, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 6748 of 2019. The reasons detailed therein shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the present case. 10. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed. His termination is set aside. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner from the date, petitioner had completed eight years of service with 240 days in each calendar year, in terms of applicable regularization policy framed by the State Government. Consequential-financial benefits shall, however, be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application No. 7632 of 2016. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.