IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3569 of 2000 DAIZY RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10/ 14/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is before this Court praying for a direction commanding the authorities to regularize her services as a class-3 employee in the State Election Commission, Bihar. It is her case that she has been working as a temporary employee since 2.1.1995. That she is a retrenched employee of the Science and Technology Department of the Government of Bihar. A counter affidavit has also been filed. The controversy initially was with regard to competence of the State Election Commission to make independent appointments sans the State Government. That controversy has now been set at rest by the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3517/06 arising out of L.P.A. No.46/05 that the State Election Commission was competent to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner places before this Court a Government letter - 2 - No.4738 dated 24.7.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms laying down guidelines in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. In pursuance of the same, the State Election Commission by letter No.Estb.10-24/06-2178 dated 8.8.2008 has recommended the names of such temporary employees who have been working for ten years in the Commission. The name of the petitioner figures at Serial No.4 of the list of those ten persons. That the matter is therefore pending a final decision. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of this writ application in terms of the Government letters as aforesaid, also with regard to the petitioner. Let such final decision be taken with respect to the petitioner in terms of the policy guidelines of the Government as noticed above within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. At this stage, this Court is satisfied that no further orders are required to be - 3 - passed except to observe that the interim order dated 20.5.2005 in favour of the petitioner shall continue to govern her till such final decision by the respondents. Let copies of the Government communication dated 24.7.2008 and 8.8.2008 referred to above placed by the counsel for the petitioner be kept on record. If there be any arrears of salary for the period of engagement, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation which also must be considered and disposed in accordance with law within the period indicated above. With the above observation, the writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )