IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10782 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 01, 2009 Dr. Jatinder Syal & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 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 petitioners with effect from the date they completed four years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that similar relief has been granted to other doctors by this Court while dealing with CWP No.10782 of 2009 [2] Civil Writ Petition No.12123 of 1994 (Dr. Lokesh Gupta & Another vs. State of Punjab) decided on 5.4.1995, placed on record as Annexure P/1A, and Civil Writ Petition No.8528 of 2009 (Dr. Sudhir Arora & Another vs. State of Punjab & Others) decided on 29.5.2009. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed on short-term basis. Services of the petitioners were not regularised. An issue was raised whereupon a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.). The Committee made recommendations to the effect that services of the Doctors be regularised with effect from the date of completion of four years in service. The recommendations of Sandhawalia Committee were accepted by the State of Punjab. Relief however was not given to all the persons. Certain persons had to approach this Court whereupon this Court passed orders favourable to the persons who are similarly situated as the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to distinguish the judgments rendered in the cases of Dr. Lokesh Gupta (supra) and Dr. Sudhir Arora (supra). In view of the above, this petition CWP No.10782 of 2009 [3] is accordingly allowed in the same terms as in the cases of Dr. Lokesh Gupta (supra) and Dr. Sudhir Arora (supra). The respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners on the analogy of their completion of four years of service on adhoc basis. The petitioners would accordingly be entitled to consequential benefits also. Needful be done within four months of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) September 01, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?