1 W.P. No. 21183 / 2011 20.12.2011 Shri Rakesh Sharma, learned for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. Petitioner was engaged in the year 2008 for the purpose of discharging certain duties in connection with election. After the period of service was over in accordance with the policies of the State Government, petitioner's name was entered in the surplus 'B' category list maintained by the State Government to be considered for appointment against regular vacancy as and when they arises in the district in question. It is the case of the petitioner that like the petitioner's many other employees who were included in the list of surplus employees and when no action was taken for their appointment, applications were filed before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and in one of the case being O.A. No. 1427/97 an order was passed on 31.01.2000 to the following effect : “For the following reasons, both the petitions succeed , it be and are hereby allowed with a direction that the respondents shall treat the applicants in both the case as surplus employees in 'B' Grade and shall appoint them on regular basis against the available vacant post and against the post may fall vacant in near future subject to their verification and satisfaction regarding the entitlement of the applicants on the basis of surplus employees in 'B' Grade. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 2 It is stated that when directions identical in nature passed in other cases were not complied with, matter came up before this Court in contempt proceedings and finally the respondents were directed to take action for regularization in accordance with the policies and rules of the State Government. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though claim of persons who had filed the petition and contempt petitions have been considered, but in the case of petitioner who was also working along with the applicants in the other case no action is taken. It is stated vide various orders that all these persons who had approached the Court have been regularized and, therefore, petitioner has now approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2. In view of the facts that have come on record, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to examine the claim of the petitioner in comparison to the claim of other employees who were regularized and other orders and take action for considering the claim of the petitioner also, in case petitioner is also identically situated, grant relief to the petitioner or else record reasons for non-grant of benefit and communicate it to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid. C.C. as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss