IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16210 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 16, 2010 Sukhdev Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 7.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) vide which the services of the petitioner considering the same as Vehicle Driver, have been de-regularised. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner was employed on daily wage basis as Cleaner and served as such w.e.f. 1.4.1983 to 31.1.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was required to serve as Vehicle Driver from 1.2.1990. It has been contended that the petitioner was given designation of Pump Operator w.e.f. 1.5.1991, however, the respondents kept on taking the task from the petitioner as Vehicle Driver. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner CWP No.16210 of 2009 [2] were regularised as Vehicle Driver vide Order dated 12.2.1996 w.e.f. 1.12.1994. Learned counsel, in view of the above, contends that the impugned order, Annexure P-6 is wrong. Seniority of the daily wage Pump Operators cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner who was serving the respondents as Vehicle Driver. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the respondents would reconsider the case of the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is found to have been serving as Vehicle Driver as pleaded by him in this petition, seniority of the petitioner in that category would be considered for regularisation of services. 4. The petition is disposed of in view of the statement of learned counsel for the respondent-State. The respondents are directed to take decision in terms of undertaking of learned counsel for the respondents, within four months of receipt of certified copy of this order. (AJAI LAMBA) September 16, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?