IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17451 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 28, 2009 Dr. Amarjit Kaur & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise services of the petitioners with effect from the date they have completed four years of service. It has been argued that the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Medical Officer on short term basis in the State CWP No.17451 of 2008 [2] of Punjab after selection. So as to consider the issue of regularisation of services of doctors, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) to consider whether the doctors working on adhoc basis should be allowed to continue or whether their services should be regularised. Sandhawalia Committee recommended that services of doctors on adhoc basis be regularised with effect from the date they complete four years of service. The recommendations of Sandhawalia Committee were accepted by the State of Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that having taken a conscious decision to accept the recommendations of Sandhawalia Committee, the respondents cannot pick and choose from amongst doctors. It has been further stated that cases of persons similarly situated, have been allowed by this Court, while referring to judgment dated 26.10.1999 rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.11014 of 1998 titled `Dr. Manmohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute the facts as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel, further, has not been able to distinguish the judgment dated 26.10.1999 CWP No.17451 of 2008 [3] rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.11014 of 1998 titled `Dr. Manmohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’. I have considered the issue. In Dr. Manmohan Singh’s case (supra), the following has been considered:- “On a consideration of the matter, it is noticed that in their reply, respondents No.1 and 2 have virtually admitted that the petitioner’s plea for regularisation after four years in service. They have only stated that the matter is under consideration. It is also noticed that the State Government, in pursuance of this Court’s order dated April 5, 1995 in the cases of Dr. Lokesh Gupta and Dr. Sunil Kumar, passed an order so as to regularise the services of those two doctors from the date on which they completed four years in service. It has further been seen that the State Government regularised the services of 34 doctors with effect from June 26, 1992 vide order dated January 31, 1995. Thus, the benefit of regularisation from an earlier date has been given to many doctors. Why has it been denied to the petitioner. The respondents have not been able to give any good reason. It is further undisputed that respondent No.4 though a regular candidate, had joined service on January 13, 1993. The petitioner though appointed on an adhoc basis, joined the service in February, 1988. He is thus senior to respondent No.4. The question of regularisation in favour of the petitioner has been kept pending by the State Government without any justification. The State Government cannot be allowed to adopt two different yardsticks on the same question. When other doctors, who are similarly situated, have been given the benefit of regularisation of their services from a retrospective date, the same could not and should not be declined to the petitioner.” On a consideration of the facts, it becomes evident that the respondents have adopted the recommendations of Sandhawalia Report and have taken a decision to regularise services of doctors on their completing 4 years in service. The decision however is being applied discriminately. Some doctors have been given the benefit and some have been denied the benefit. CWP No.17451 of 2008 [4] The persons who approached this Court, have been allowed the relief. Despite such being the facts, although the petitioners completed 4 years in service as doctors, their services have not been regularised from that date. This action of the respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass orders regarding regularisation of services of the petitioners with effect from the date on which they completed four years in service. Necessary decision be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) July 28, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?