CWP No.17183 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17183 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2011 MAI CHAND ...PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. SALIL BALI, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner was working as a Chowkidar and held the post without any break. The petition had been filed at the time when the workman was facing an imminent threat of termination of service and through the writ petition, sought for regularization of his services, he having worked for 2 years and 9 months. It appears that his termination was stayed by this Court and it continued till he died. The legal representatives of the workman have been added as parties. 2. The issue whether the workman was entitled to be regularized or not cannot survive consideration after his death. If this will have any meaning for grant of any particular benefits accrued only to regular workman then the issue of whether such regularization was possible or not must be governed either by the recruitment rules or in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi CWP No.17183 of 1989 -2- reported as 2006(4) SCC 1. The said judgement itself provides that in the absence of any specific recruitment rules, the respective Governments could frame schemes for regularization as a one time measure for persons who had held the service for 10 years. Admittedly, the petitioner at that time did not have 10 years experience. The said judgement excepts from the scheme of regularization such class of persons who continued in employment by the benefit of interim order secured from Courts. His continuance of service for all these years when the case had been pending cannot itself, therefore, offer a scope of regularization. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. March 23, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE