CWP No.2242 of 2003.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2242 of 2003 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Papu . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Vivek Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was employed as a Sweeper-cum- Chowkidar on part-time basis in the office of respondent No.3 through Employment Exchange in the year 1989. It appears that his services were discontinued w.e.f. 25.10.2002. (2). The petitioner now seeks a mandamus for regularization of his services and also to direct payment of salary to him as per the Deputy Commissioner’s rates (DC rates). He avers that no sooner the above-stated claims were raised before the authorities vide legal notice dated 21.12.2001 CWP No.2242 of 2003.doc - 2 – (Annexure P6), respondent No.5 dispensed with his services without considering the said claim. (3). On the other hand, the respondents have filed their counter-reply/affidavit in which they have come up with a plea that the petitioner did not offer his part-time services after 25.10.2002. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival stand taken by them, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to offer his services before the respondent No.3 and report for duty in case there is any vacancy available for employment of the petitioner on part-time basis. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner’s request sympathetically and in terms of the Government policy, if any. In case there is no vacancy available, respondent No.2 and 3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner as contained in the legal notice dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure P6) by passing a speaking order as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.2242 of 2003.doc - 3 – 22.02.2010 vishal shonkar