IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.582 of 1988 Date of Decision : March 15, 2010. Charan Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This writ petition was filed by 11 petitioners seeking a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondents from terminating their services with a further direction for their regular absorption. During the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner Nos.1 & 4 have unfortunately passed away whereas petitioner No.10 has resigned from service. Petitioner No.9 has retired and is getting pension which obviously means that his services were regularized while he was in service. Similarly, services of petitioner No.3 have also been regularized. In this manner, the writ petition survives qua petitioner Nos.2, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 11 C.W.P.No .582 of 1988 2 besides the legal representatives of deceased-petitioner Nos.1 & 4. There is no denial to the fact that though services of the petitioners were terminated at one point of time but they were reinstated in service. It is also not in dispute that petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were appointed in the year 1979 whereas petitioner No.3 was appointed in the year 1981 and rest of the petitioner were appointed in the year 1984. It will be totally abhorrent to the commitment of a welfare State to suggest that even after serving for decades the petitioners are `daily wagers' and/or their services are yet to be `regularized'. Once the petitioners have been re-instated, the entire service has to be reckoned with for the purposes of regularization. The plea of the State counsel that there are not adequate sanctioned posts also deserves to be rejected outrightly for the reasons that if the petitioners required to work since the year 1979, how can the administrative apathy or in-action of not sanctioning the posts despite there being requirement of Chowkidars, can deprive the petitioners from the fruits of uninterrupted service of over 25 years rendered by them? The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner Nos.2, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 11 and pass appropriate orders for regularization of their services as per their seniority, if already not passed. Similarly, services of petitioner Nos.1 & 4 (since dead) shall also be regularized from the due date and if already not granted, their legal representatives/dependent(s) shall be granted the benefits like `family pension' and other retiral benefits, in accordance with C.W.P.No .582 of 1988 3 law, within a period of three month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. March 15, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE