1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6323/09 Purshotum Kumar Jain v. State & ors. ... Date of Order: 21.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit , for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. ... Inspite of the fact that the notice of the petition has been served for final disposal, the respondents have not put in appearance. In the interest of justice, on 12.10.2009, the matter was adjourned so that the respondents may put in appearance. Then the matter was adjourned on 18.11.2009. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and the facts have not been disputed and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court delivered in the case of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7571/08-Dalip Singh Nirman vs. State & ors. decided on 15.5.2009. In view of the above reasons, since the petitioner was held entitled to be for regularization of his services and is allowed to have the same benefit, which was extended to three persons, namely S/sh. Rameshwar Lal Sharma, Ramesh Chand Sharma and Babulal Kanoda vide order dated 15.12.2006 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.815/2006, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to decide the 2 petitioner's case for regularization from earlier date as claimed by the petitioner in accordance with law and may pass fresh order after considering the contention of the petitioner and after taking into account the earlier order passed by this Court. The representation of the petitioner be decided within a period of two months from the date of petitioner's submission a fresh representation along with the copy of this order, which may be placed by the petitioner before the competent authority. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.