IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.4040 of 2006 Date of Decision : July 29, 2011. Harbinder Singh and another .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider and regularize their services keeping in view the policy instructions dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent corrigendum dated 28.3.2003 (Anne4xure P-2). Vide order dated 16.3.2006, the writ petition was adjourned sine die to await the decision in the pending matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 13.8.2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded the matter to this Court for fresh decision. Meanwhile, the State Government has taken a policy decision in terms of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Secretary CWP No.4040 of 2006 [2] State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) S.C.C.-1. As prayed for, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the policy decision said to have been framed by the State Government in terms of Uma Devi's case (supra). The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Suffice it to mention that in case the petitioners are found entitled to any relief, the same shall be granted to them within a period of two months thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. July 29, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE