CWP No. 9878 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9878 of 2008 Date of Decision: 9.12.2009 Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashwani Markanday, DAG, Haryana. Dr.Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate, Advocate, with Ms.Anamika Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Vinod K.Sharma, J . (Oral The petitioner has approached this court to challenge the letter/memo dated 31.5.2007 attached as Annexure P.9 to this writ petition vide which the services of the petitioner have been extended up to 31.5.2008, by treating him as contractual appointee, despite the fact that the petitioner has rendered service as regular employee. The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties on the post of Lecturer (Commerce) as regular CWP No. 9878 of 2008 2 employee along with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. On notice, the writ petition was contested by the respondents by taking a stand that the petitioner was never appointed on regular basis but on contractual basis. There is no necessity to go into controversy involved, on merit, as the the respondent/University has regularized the services of he petitioner w.e.f. 27.2.2009 and at present he is working as Lecturer (Commerce) on regular basis. Dr.Balram Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the University on instruction states that the petitioner would be released regular pay scale of the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 27.2.2009 i.e. the date of his regularization. The petitioner is satisfied with the order passed by the University and does not press this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays that he was entitled to regular pay scale since the date of his initial appointment, therefore, seeks the permission of this court to make representation in this regard to the University. “Permission granted”. University may take decision on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law as and when moved. In view of the stand taken by University, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 09.12.2009 Judge rp