IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11572 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2009 DR. DALJIT KAUR LAMBA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. HS Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Dr. Daljit Kaur Lamba has filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from the date she completed 4 years in service. The basis of claim of the petitioner is that she has been discriminated against. The respondents have taken a decision to regularise the services of doctors on completion of 4 years in service. While other similarly situated persons have been given the benefit, the same has been Civil Writ Petition No. 11572 of 2008 2 denied to the petitioner. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that for consideration of the issue of regularisation of services, a committee under the Chairmanship of Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, Former Chief Justice, was constituted. Recommendations were made by the Committee to the effect that the services of adhoc doctors should be regularised with effect from the date they complete 4 years in service. The recommendations of the Committee were accepted by the State of Punjab, however, the relief is being given discriminately. Rather, the persons who have approached this Court have been given the relief, however, the others have not been given the relief. Services of the petitioner have been regularised with effect from 26.6.1992. The date of appointment of the petitioner being 20.1.1987, the services should have been regularised from the date the petitioner completed 4 years in service. In this regard, reliance has been placed on judgments rendered by this Court in CWP 12123 of 1994 (Dr. Lokesh Gupta and another v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 5.4.1995 (Annexure P- 1/A), CWP 11014 of 1998 (Dr. Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 26.10.1999 (Annexure P-5), CWP 14189 of 2001 (Dr. Bharat Bhushan and others v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 18.2.2003 (Annexure P-6) and CWP 20211 of 2006 (Dr. Gurjeet Singh Civil Writ Petition No. 11572 of 2008 3 Dhaliwal and others v. State of Punjab and another) decided on 19.12.2006 (Annexure P-8/A). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the court towards a recent judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 8528 of 2009 (Dr. Sudhir Arora and another v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-8/C), operative portion whereof reads as under:- “This petition accordingly succeeds and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on the analogy of his juniors and the petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularized on completion of four years of service on ad hoc basis. He will be entitled to all consequential benefits.” Learned counsel for the respondent-State has neither been able to distinguish the facts nor draw a distinction between the judgments to which reference has been made above. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP 8528 of 2009 (Dr. Sudhir Arora and another v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-8/C). August 4, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?