IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4828 of 2004. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st February, 2011. Satya Devi Petitioner through Mr. S.B.Kaushik, Advocate Versus P.S.E.B. & others Respondents through Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize her services w.e.f. 15.07.1982 when she was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk. She also seeks quashing of the order dated 1.02.1996 [Annexure P-10] rejecting her claim to the afore-stated effect. The facts are not really in dispute. The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis w.e.f. 15.07.1982 and while she was working to the entire satisfaction of the respondents, there came to be issued a Policy Circular dated 19.05.1984 [Annexure P-1] in terms whereof the services of adhoc employees subject to their fulfillment of the eligibility conditions, were to be regularized. It further appears that the name of the petitioner along with other ad-hoc LDCs was recommended for regularization of the services as per the said policy vide memo dated 29.09.1984 [Annexure P-2] but no final decision was apparently taken. Later on the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996 in terms of the subsequent policy decision. The petitioner has meanwhile retired from service. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that all the retiral dues of the petitioner have been released. The only question that survives for consideration is as to whether the services of the petitioner are liable to be regularized from the date prior to 01.02.1996 as in that event the length of 'regular service' of the petitioner would increase to further entitle her for additional service benefits like proficiency step -up etc. As noticed earlier, the respondents had taken a policy decision in the year 1984 to regularize the services of adhoc employees. It is also apparent that the petitioner's case was recommended for the same but no decision was taken. It would, therefore, be expedient to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider her claim for regularization of her services in terms of the policy circular dated 19.05.1984 [Annexure P-1] and/or any subsequent circular issued for regularization of the services of the ad-hoc employees. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled to regularization of her services from a date prior to 01.02.1996, necessary orders to that effect shall be passed and consequential service benefits, if any, shall also be granted to her. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. February 21, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE