ORDER : State has filed instant writ petition against an order passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 17.12.2015 in TA No.4598/2015. Under this order shortfall in completion of 240 days in service of respondent in the years 1998 to 2001 was condoned and directions were issued to regularize his services as T-Mate from the date his juniors were regularized with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts Respondent was engaged as daily waged Electrical Beldar (T-Mate) in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department Electrical Sub Division Kullu w.e.f. 01.10.1997. S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Murari Lal engaged after 1.12.1999 were juniors to the respondent. Services of Nikka Ram and Murari Lal were regularized on 17.11.2008 and 27.11.2008 respectively. Service of one Sh. Jeet Singh, another junior to the respondent, was also regularized. However, service of the respondent was regularized only on 13.10.2010. TA No.4598/2015 was instituted by the respondent with the assertion that he had completed 240 days of service after the year 1997 onwards in each calendar year. That fictional breaks were illegally given to him to prevent him from completing 240 days w.e.f. 1.10.1997 to 2001. He prayed for regularization of his service with effect from the year 2006. On considerating the facts, learned tribunal allowed the petition vide order dated 17.12.2015 with the observation that the respondent ‘will be deemed to have completed 240 days in the years 1998 to 2005’. The State was directed to regularize his services from the date his juniors were regularized immediately on completion of 8 years service with all consequential benefits. This order has been impugned by the State in the instant writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 4. Contentions 4(i). The contention raised by the petitioner-State is that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service in the years 1997 to 2001. He worked for 78 days in the year 1997, 179 days in the year 1998, 237 days in the year 1999, 212 days in the year 2000 and 207 days in the year 2001. He started working for minimum 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2002 onwards. Accordingly, his services were regularized in the year 2010 on completion of 8 years of continuous service. The breaks in his service cannot be condoned. 4(ii). He started working for minimum 240 days in each calendar year from the year 2002 onwards. Accordingly, his services were regularized in the year 2010 on completion of 8 years of continuous service. The breaks in his service cannot be condoned. 4(ii). Defending the impugned order, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that (a) respondent was given fictional breaks by the petitioner-employer during the years 1997 to 2001. These fictional breaks are liable to be ignored for computing the period towards regularization of his service; (b) His correct muster-roll was not prepared by the employer. Respondent had served for more than 240 days continuously from the year 1997 onwards, therefore, his entire service from the year 1997 is to be reckoned while computing the period for the purpose of his regularization; (c) Assuming for the sake of arguments that the respondent did not complete 240 work days in each calendar year during the years 1997 to 2001, then also on ground of parity with his juniors, the shortfall in requisite number of completed work days in his service during these years is liable to be condoned. S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Murari Lal, juniors to the respondent had breaks in their services. They were similarly situated as the respondent. However in their cases, the breaks in service were condoned. They were regularized after taking into consideration their entire service right from dates of their first appointments. Similar benefits deserve to be granted to the respondent; (d) CWP No.5900/2010 titled Shyam Lal Vs. State of H.P., decided on 18.12.2012 was a case where the Court took into consideration that Nikka Ram & Murari Lal though were juniors to the petitioner therein, but had been regularized prior in time. These juniors did not have to their credit 240 days of continous service in each calendar from the dates of their engagement. Yet all these years were included for counting the period towards regularization of their services. The Court besides noticing the facts of the case also referred to a letter of the State dated 14.09.2007 to hold that State has been following the practice of giving artificial breaks to the workmen to prevent them from completing 240 days in the calendar year. The writ petition filed by the petitioner Shyam Lal was allowed. Break in his service was ordered to be condoned. The writ petition filed by the petitioner Shyam Lal was allowed. Break in his service was ordered to be condoned. State was directed to regularize his service from the date his juniors were regularized. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no error in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Observations On consideration of the case, we observe following:- 5(i). The respondent was admittedly engaged on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1.10.1997. One Shyam Lal was engaged on 1.12.1999. S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Murari Lal were engaged after the engagement of Shyam Lal. S/Sh. Shyam Lal, Nikka Ram and Murari Lal were thus juniors to the respondent. This fact is not denied by the employer/petitioner. 5(ii) The mandays chart of Sh. Nikka Ram available in the case file shows that he had completed 226 days of service in the year 2000 and 211 days of service in the year 2001. He was regularized on 17.11.2008 after taking into consideration the years 2000 and 2001. In both these years, Nikka Ram did not have 240 working days. Similarly Sh. Murari Lal was regularized on 27.11.2008 after taking into consideration the years 2000 & 2001. As per Mandays chart, he only had 225 and 81 days of service in the years 2000 and 2001 respectively. Respondent was similarly situated vis-a-vis his juniors Nikka Ram & Murari Lal and could not be discriminated in the matter of computation of period for the purpose of regularization of his service. As per petitioner/employer’s stand, the respondent had worked for 237 days of service in the year 1999, 212 days of service in the year 2000 and 207 days of service in the year 2001. In the facts and circumstances of the case the service rendered by the respondent in the year 1999 and onwards was required to be considered for the purposes of his regularization by condoning the shortfall. 5(iii) Sh. Shyam Lal, who was also one of the juniors to the respondent had instituted a writ petition bearing CWP No.5900/2010 seeking his regularization as T-mate from the date his juniors were regularized on completion of 8 years of service. His case was that S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Murari Lal (persons mentioned above) were engaged on daily wage basis after his engagement. His case was that S/Sh. Nikka Ram and Murari Lal (persons mentioned above) were engaged on daily wage basis after his engagement. His grievance was that these two juniors were regularized on 17.11.2008 and 27.11.2008 respectively after condoning the break in their service period, whereas his services had not been regularized from due date. The employer-State refuted the claim of the petitioner Shyam Lal on the ground that he had completed only 85 days of service in the year 1999, 214 days in the year 2000, 229 days in the year 2001, 215 days in the year 2002, 219 days in the year 2003, 240 days in the year 2004, 228 days in the year 2005, 227 days in the year 2006, 249 ½ days in the year 2007. The Court while allowing the writ petition vide judgment dated 18.12.2012 observed that there was shortage of 26 days in the year 2000, 11 days in the year 2001, 25 days in the year 2002, 21 days in the year 2003, 12 days in the year 2005 and 13 days in the year 2006 in Shyam Lal’s service to complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months. Taking note of letter dated 14.09.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary (Public Works) wherein directions were issued to ensure that the ‘workmen are permitted to complete 240 days in the year and the persons who were engaged before 2006 on the intermittent break basis, should also be given muster roll for full month in relaxation of policy’, it was observed that the contents of the letter established that the State had been following the pratice of giving artifical breaks to the workmen to prevent them from completing 240 days in the calendar year. Shyam Lal’s writ petition was accordiongly allowed. It was held that the petitioner Shyam Lal could not be denied regularization by giving him artificial breaks. During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate General informed that the State has accepted the judgment in Shyam Lal’s case. Petitioner is senior to Shyam Lal. The case of the respondent is similar to that of Shyam Lal in CWP No.5900/2010. Insofar as, respondent is concerned, there is shortage of 3 days in the year 1999, 28 days in the year 2000 and 33 days in the year 2001. The Courts have always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. Petitioner is senior to Shyam Lal. The case of the respondent is similar to that of Shyam Lal in CWP No.5900/2010. Insofar as, respondent is concerned, there is shortage of 3 days in the year 1999, 28 days in the year 2000 and 33 days in the year 2001. The Courts have always frowned upon artificial breaks in service. [Reference (2009) 6 SCC 611 titled Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam] Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, where the respondents have condoned the shortages of many days while regularizing the services of respondent’s juniors S/Sh Nikka Ram, Murari Lal and Shyam Lal as discussed above, the fictional breaks of few days in the service of respondent during the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 are required to be condoned. Learned Tribunal vide impugned order has directed the appellant-State to treat the respondent to be in continuous service with 240 days in the years 1998 onwards. Considering the fact that the respondent as per mandays chart had only completed 78 days in the year 1997 and 179 days in the year 1998, we modify the order passed by the learned Tribunal in TA No.4598/2015 dated 17.12.2015, to the extent that the respondent shall be deemed to have completed 240 days from the year 1999 onwards. The remaining part of the directions contained in the impugned order shall remain the same. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.