IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3556 of 1988 Date of Decision: August 05,2011 Ishwar Singh Bhardwaj & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Mr.Rathee was given time to ascertain whether the services of the petitioners have been regularised or not. If the services of the petitioners have, by now, been regularised, the writ petition would be rendered infructuous. On the other hand, if no action has been taken to regularise their services, then there will be hardly any need to go into the claim made in the writ petition at this belated stage. Even the prayer made in the writ petition is for directing the respondents to frame a rational policy to regularise services of the petitioners. This prayer, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi (3) & others, 2006(4) SCC 1, may not be open to be considered. No one otherwise has appeared for the petitioners. In my view, the writ petition has become infructuous with the passage of time, especially so when the State has made no Civil Writ Petition No.3556 of 1988 :2: efforts to find out whether the petitioners are in service or not. Dismissed as infructuous. If any petitioner is left with any cause, he would be at liberty to get the petition revived. August 05, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE