IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.871 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.01.2010 Manjit Kumar and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners are working as Class-IV employees on the posts like Water Carier, Cook, Barber, Sweepers etc. in the Police C.W.P.No .871 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Department of the State of Punjab. They are said to be working against the vacant posts since the year 1994 and have rendered more than 15 years spotless service. The petitioners now seek regularisation of their services in terms of the policy decision dated 1.9.2006, taken by the Government of Punjab in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1. The petitioners have specifically averred that since they are working against duly sanctioned vacant posts and fulfill all the requisite conditions under the Government Policy, their services deserved to be regularised especially in view of the order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondents whereby services of similarly situated Class-IV employees working as Dhobi, Cook, Water Carrier, Barber, Sweeper, Tailor, Mochi, Carpenter etc., have been regularized. In this regard, the petitioners allege discrimination qua them. The petitioners are stated to have served the respondents through a legal notice dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) but without any response. Having heard counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that if the facts, as pleaded by the petitioners, were correct, prima-facie, their claim for regularization of services deserves to be considered in terms of the policy decision dated 1.9.2006, especially when the respondents themselves have regularized the services of several similarly situated employees. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take cognizance of the petitioners' claim as contained in their legal notice dated 29.10.2009 C.W.P.No .871 of 2010 (O&M) 3 (Annexure P-4) and consider the same under the Government Policy (Annexure P-2) within a period of 4 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Disposed of. Dasti. 20-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE