IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 881 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.9.2009. Ashok Kumar and others ......Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellants were recruited on ad hoc basis and had worked for 14 years on the posts of Cook/Sweeper. Their services were terminated vide order dated 19.8.2009. 2. Learned Single Judge held that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi (3) and others 2006(4) SCC 1, no direction could be issued for regularization or for allowing the appellants to continue till regular selection made. It was further observed that appellants could apply in pursuance of advertisement which had been issued and the respondents would consider their claim on the basis of appellants having already worked for considerable period. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007] 11 SCC 179, observation was made that judgment in Uma Devi (supra) was in conflict with larger Bench Judgment LPA No. 881 of 2009 [2] in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another AIR 1978 SC 597. Alternative prayer is for relaxation in age for fresh appointment. 4. The contention raised cannot be accepted. The Judgment in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra), relied upon by learned counsel has since been overruled by larger Bench in Official Liquidator v. Daya Nand and others [2008] 10 SCC 1. It is however, made clear that the appellants will be at liberty to seek relaxation in age by making appropriate application to the concerned authorities in accordance with law. 5. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) September 11, 2009 JUDGE raghav