CWP(T) No.3802/2008. 25.2.2009. Present: Mr.K.D.Shreedhar, counsel for the Petitioner. Mr.R.K.Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. for the Respondents. It is the petitioner’s grievance that his services were illegally and unauthorizedly terminated in 1995. In the reply, the State has clarified that the petitioner had not worked continuously for more than 240 days in the calendar year 1995. These are the disputed facts which cannot be adjudicated and impugned in the present petition. On 23rd December, 1996 the court had passed an interim order directing the respondents to re-engage the applicant at the same place and on the same terms and conditions on which the petitioner was engaged prior to alleged termination. Keeping in view the policy of the State with the passage of time, the petitioner must have been regularized. Be that as it may be if the petitioner’s grievance still survives it will always open for him to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol),J. February 25, 2009(R)