IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17877 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 1st October, 2010. Harbans Singh Petitioner through Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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] Notice of motion. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any reply/affidavit on behalf of the respondents at this stage. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider him for regularization of his services. The petitioner is working as a Mali in the respondent Corporation since 20.1.1993. He seeks regularisation of his services in terms of the Punjab Government policy dated 15.12.2006 [Annexure P-1] read with the Circular dated 21.1.2010 [Annexure P- 2] issued by the respondent authorities. The petitioner's grievance is that in terms of the orders passed in the cases of similarly situated employees, their services have been regularized but the claim of the petitioner is not being considered for no valid reason. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same with a direction to respondents NO. 2 and 3 to consider the afore-stated claim of the petitioner and dispose of the same, in accordance with law/policy, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. October 01, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE