IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.4863 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2010 ANITA KUMARI ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GP Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This order shall dispose of CWP No.4843 of 2010 (Anita Kumari v. The State of Punjab and others), CWP No.6597 of 2010 (Kamla Rani v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No.8195 of 2010 (Darshan Kaur v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the petitioners were appointed on part-time basis. They have completed considerable period in service. There has been no break in service. The services of the petitioners, however, have not been regularised. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that a Civil Writ Petition No.4863 of 2010 2 Division Bench of this Court while dealing with LPA No.43 of 2006 (Smt. Tejinder Kaur and others v. Surjeet Kaur) decided on 17.3.2008 has already considered the issue, wherein the respondent-State took a firm stand that the services of part-time employees will be regularised strictly as per seniority and within quota from time to time. The services of the petitioners would be terminated only on grounds of proven misconduct or delinquency or incapacity and that too after following the proper procedure and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person(s) concerned at the level of the competent authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that in view of the stand taken by the respondents in LPA No.43 of 2006 (Smt. Tejinder Kaur and others v. Surjeet Kaur) decided on 17.3.2008, these petitions be disposed of. 5. Following relevant portion needs to be extracted from Smt.Tejinder Kaur's case (supra):- “Since the State has filed an affidavit that services of the part time employees will be regularised strictly as per seniority and within quota from time to time and further that the services of the respondents shall not be terminated except on the grounds of proven misconduct or delinquency or incapacity and that too after following the proper procedure and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person(s) concerned at the level of the Competent Authority, the grievances of the respondents does not survive. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx In view of the affidavit dated 4.4.2007 filed by the State and also considering the assurance given to the Court by learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, we allow these Civil Writ Petition No.4863 of 2010 3 appeals and set aside the impugned order. However, it is made clear that if any of the respondents has any grievance with regard to the regularization of his services, he shall be at liberty to make a grievance by filing a representation which shall be disposed of by the State by passing a reasoned order and that too after affording an opportunity of hearing.” 6. These petitions are disposed of in terms of order passed in LPA No.43 of 2006 (Smt. Tejinder Kaur and others v. Surjeet Kaur) decided on 17.3.2008. August 4, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?