IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17354 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.9.2010. Suresh Kumar --Petitioner Versus Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences Rohtak, Haryana & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. A.K. Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager on 29.6.1994 on the post of Chowkidar on D.C rates. It appears that the Haryana Govt. took a policy decision to regularize the services of daily wagers on completion of 5 years of service on 31.1.1996. The petitioner filed CWP No. 18171 of 2001 seeking regularization on the basis of some policy decisions of the State Govt. for regularization of daily wagers. This writ petition came to be allowed vide judgement dated 10.8.2004 and respondent no.3 was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization under the Govt. Policy and if he is found eligible under the same, he may be considered for regularization with effect from the date of the issuance of the policy letter i.e. Dated 18.3.1996. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner was regularized vide letter dated 11.7.2006 w.e.f. 1.10.2003. The petitioner availed the benefit of regularization. It is after more than 3 years that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order of regularization to the extent the petitioner's regularization has been made effective w.e.f. 1.10.2003. The further prayer made is that the CWP. No. 17354 of 2010 -2- directions be issued for regularization of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.2.1996. There is no explanation for delay in filing the present petition. Otherwise also, the regularization order of the petitioner has been passed on 5.7.2006 i.e. after the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of of Secretary, State of Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others reported as 2006 (4) SCC 1, wherein in para 54 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made clear that even a judgement or a direction of any court for regularization which is in contravention of the aforesaid judgement, will not be implemented nor any such Govt. Policy can be implemented after this judgement. Admittedly, petitioner has been regularized after the judgement. However, the fact remains that the petitioner stands regularized, therefore, no interference is warranted in so far the regularization is concerned but at the same time the petitioner cannot ask for retrospective regularization. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 24.9.2010. lucky