IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2096 of 1989 Date of decision:19.05.2010 Mr.Ram Singh and others ….Petitioners versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh, through its Chief Administrator and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None. ---- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. On 17.12.2008, when the matter was called before this Court, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. This Court noted that the counsel, Shri Satya Narayan Singla, who had entered appearance on behalf of the petitioners, is no longer alive and had directed the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Haryana, to appoint a counsel to prosecute the case of the petitioners. It appears that Registry has issued notices to the petitioners but they have not come back served or otherwise. The case is of the year 1989 and having regard to the nature of relief sought for in the writ petition, I do not think it is necessary to keep the case pending any longer. Civil Writ Petition No.2096 of 1989 - 2 - 2. The writ petition has been filed at the instance of persons who claimed themselves as Keymen, Water Pump Operator, Sewerman working in the office of the Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division, Jind. They had claimed that they be paid the same salary and allowances which were permissible to regular employees and that their services be regularized in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh-(1992) 4 SCC 118. 3. The claim to parity in wages between the adhoc employees and regular employees is not possible in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Versus Karshanbai K. Rabari-(2006) 6 SCC 21. Even a claim for regularization in terms of Piara Singh's case does not survive favourable consideration. In view of the change in law that has come about through the dispensation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi-(2006) 4 SCC 1. 4. If the petitioners have obtained employment or regularized in the meanwhile, no further directions are necessary. If they have continued as adhoc employee, a direction for regularization is not possible in view of the law laid down by Uma Devi's case (supra) . A claim to parity also is not permissible through any judicial directives as it has no valid legal basis. The writ petition, under the circumstances, is disposed of as no direction would become necessary in the manner sought for by the petitioners. (K.KANNAN) 19.05.2010 JUDGE sanjeev