1/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7571/2008 Dalip Singh Nirman vs State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 15.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. YP Khileri, DY. GA for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to give the same treatment to the petitioner as it is extended to S/Sh. Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Ramesh Chand Sharma and Babulal Kanoda by regularizing his services on the post of Junior Engineer in accordance with law in the writ petition being SBCWP No.815/2006 vide order dated 15.12.2006. Inspite of the specific direction of this Court in order dated 15.12.2006, the petitioner's services has been regularized w.e.f. 15.12.2006 vide Annex.6 dated 26th May, 2007. The petitioner has placed on record the orders passed for the employees referred in the order dated 15.12.2006 whose services have been regularized from the date of screening i.e., 6th March, 1998. The petitioner even approached this Court by filing a contempt petition for non-compliance of the order dated 2/2 15.12.2006. However, since no order could have been passed to give actual relief to the petitioner in contempt proceedings, therefore, the contempt petition was dismissed and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner's representation is pending before the authorities. Since the petitioner was held entitled to be for regularization of his services and is allowed to have the same benefit, which was extended to aforesaid three persons, namely S/Sh. Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Ramesh Chand Sharma and Babulal Kanoda vide order dated 15.12.2006, therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to decide the petitioner's case for regularization from earlier date as claimed by the petitioner in accordance with law and may pass fresh order after considering the contention of the petitioner and after taking into account the earlier order passed by this Court. The representation of the petitioner be decided within a period of two months from the date of petitioner's submission a fresh representation alongwith the copy of this order, which may be placed by the petitioner before the competent authority. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-