IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7564 of 2009 Date of Decision: October 28, 2009 Lakhwant Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - None for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This matter, for the first time, came up for hearing on 19.5.2009. At the request having been made on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 31.7.2009. On 31.7.2009, arguments were not addressed and on request, the matter was adjourned to 3.9.2009. On 3.9.209, there was a written request made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. The matter was adjourned for today. None, however, has put in appearance. In the petition, prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the CWP No.7564 of 2009 [2] services of the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator and to grant benefits arising out of regularisation. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was recruited as daily wage Pump Operator on 21.10.1994 Services of the petitioner, under Instructions dated 23.1.2003 issued by the respondents, were regularised w.e.f. 29.6.2001. At the time of regularisation of services, as per the pleaded case, benefit of reservation was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was ordered to be de-regularised vide Order dated 2.7.2003. It has been pleaded in Para 6 of the petition that the order had been issued in compliance of judgment dated 17.2.2003 of this Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order on the ground that he was not arrayed as a party, filed Civil Writ Petition No.10158 of 2003 titled `Sukhvir & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’. The matter was decided. This Court, as per Order reproduced in Para 6 of the petition, directed the respondent-State to issue show cause notice to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing them. The State was given liberty to confront the CWP No.7564 of 2009 [3] petitioner with the situation that there are limited number of posts and the petitioners can only wait for their turn for regularisation as and when regular vacancy may occur or any other ground that may be available. It has been pleaded in Para 7 that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.5.2004. I have gone through the show cause notice. The petitioner, by virtue of notice, has been apprised of the implications of order dated 17.2.2003 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.1783 of 2002 titled `Mohan Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab’. Notice further states that benefit of reservation is not available. While giving details, the petitioner has been informed that services had been regularised before turn. As per Government Policy dated 23.1.2007, employees senior to the petitioner were still available whose services had not been regularised. No plausible explanation is coming forth in regard to the query raised in the show cause notice. The petition does not make it clear as to the right of the petitioner to regularisation. The mode of entry in service has CWP No.7564 of 2009 [4] not been given by the petitioner as to whether it was in accordance with statutory rules or not. It is further not reflected in the petitioner as to how the petitioner was senior most employee working on daily wage basis to claim right to regularisation. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) October 28, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?