IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.11.2010 COCP No.256 of 2009 Gian Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dr. B.C.Gupta and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed on 06.04.1990 and the State was directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization with effect from the date the persons junior to them have been regularized. Consequent, to the said directions, the respondents have passed an order, wherein the claim of petitioner Nos.2, 11, 12 & 13 for regularization was rejected, as they did not fulfil the conditions for regularization and none of the juniors to the said petitioners were regularized. Services of all other petitioners were regularized. Earlier the petitioner has filed COCP No.1390 of 2008, which was dismissed on 02.09.2008. The present petition was adjourned sine die to await the decision of SLP (C) No.19713 of 2005 titled ‘State of Punjab Vs. Sewa Singh’. The question in the said SLP has since been decided in Civil Appeal No.8306 of 2009 titled “Bhakra Beas Management Board and others Vs. Hari Chand” (alongwith other connected Civil Appeals including C.A.No.8308 of 2009) on 10.12.2009 and the matter has been remitted back to this Court for re-determining the question, whether the COCP No.256 of 2009 daily wage service prior to the regularization is to be counted for determining minimum qualifying service. The said question does not arise in the present contempt petitions, as the services of the petitioners have not been regularized. The earlier contempt petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 02.09.2008 for the reason that the petitioner has filed the contempt petition after 18 years and that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, in which the claim for regularization has been reconsidered and the earlier judgments have been set aside. In view of the above, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petitions. The same is accordingly dismissed. 25.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2