IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2011 Dated of decision: 29.07.2011 Lilu Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction for quashing order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure P-6), whereby his claim for regularization has been declined. Further the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for regularization from the date his juniors have been so regularised. The petitioner was not in service from 01.10.1994 to 01.01.2000 but was reinstated because of award passed by the labour Court. Accordingly, the case was taken up with the Government for relaxation for treating the said period as continuity in service. It is stated that the relaxation has not so far been granted. In the meantime, the Government has withdrawn the instructions whereby the petitioner has sought regularization of the services. Besides, it is also mentioned that the petitioner did not fulfill mandatory terms and conditions and so his services cannot be regularized unless special relaxation in the rule is given by the Civil Writ Petition No. 4152 of 2011 -2- Government. The case has already been taken up for regularization with the Government and in the reply it is clearly stated as soon as relaxation/advice of the Government is received in the case of petitioner, it shall be sympathetically considered. It is also stated that the petitioner continues in the service with the respondent and it is a lengthy procedure and channel to get special relaxation in such cases. As per the respondents, since efforts are being continuously made in getting the sanction for regularization of the petitioner. It is the case, where the issue is under consideration. The petitioner has been granted continuity in service by the labour Court. As per the counsel for the petitioner, this award was on the basis of compromise reached between the parties before the labour Court. That being the position, it may not now be possible for the respondents to circumvent the direction given in the award passed by the labour Court. If the continuity of service is given, it is not understood as to why there is still a case taken up for relaxation for treating the period as continuous service. Since the matter is being under consideration of the Government, no interference at this stage is called for. The petitioner is already in service. Till the time, the respondents take a decision, services of the petitioner may be continued. In the meantime, the respondents may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. July 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE