CWP No.3171 of 1992 : 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 20.01.2010 Smt. Mridula Bhargava Vs. The State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Kuljit Singh, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl.AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner was selected/appointed pursuant to the selection made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana to the post of Assistant Archivists vide letter dated 25.6.1981. The selection made by the Board was challenged before this Court in CWP No.4806 of 1981. In that writ petition the selection was set aside by this Court vide order dated 31.05.1982. The State of Haryana filed the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.1982 directing the State of Haryana to consider the case for regularisation of the petitioner herein, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (4) SCC, 118, as also the decision of the State Government in that regard. Consequent upon the aforesaid direction, the State of Haryana has passed order dated 23.12.1997, copy whereof has been placed on record today. By virtue of the aforesaid order the CWP No.3171 of 1992 : 2 service of the petitioner has been regularised as Assistant Archivist with effect from 01.11.1986. This regularisation has been ordered in terms of the State Government policy dated 28.04.1997 which, inter- alia, provide for regularisation of the ad hoc employees having more than two years of service as on 1.11.1996. This regularisation has been ordered strictly in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government and the direction of the Supreme Court. Petitioner in this case is claiming regularisation with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 1981. The selection of the petitioner made in the year 1981 was set aside by this Court and that order finally merged in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the claim of the petitioner with regard to regularisation with effect from the date of initial selection does not survive. The service of the petitioner has been regularised vide order dated 23.12.1997. The petitioner shall be entitled to all benefits accrued from the order aforesaid. 20.01.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO