IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.8429 of 2009 Date of decision : 3.2.2011 Vasu Dev and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The parties are ad idem that the controversy in this case is akin to the one which has been settled in CWP No.4617 of 2009, decided on 20.4.2010. Accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the said judgment and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others (2006)4 SCC 1, wherein it is held as under :- “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa, R.N.Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly C.W.P.No.8429 of 2009 -2- qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” The representations be decided within a period of six C.W.P.No.8429 of 2009 -3- months from the receipt of the copy of the order. 3.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss