IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.11.2010 COCP No.1105 of 2008 Apurba Deka ...Petitioner Versus Mr. R.C.Nayyar, IAS and others ...Respondents COCP No.1142 of 2008 Nipen Basuma Tari ...Petitioner Versus Mr. R.C.Nayyar, IAS and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Cheema, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of aforesaid two contempt petitions. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed on 07.03.2003 and the State was directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization with effect from the date the persons junior to them have been regularized. Consequent, to the said directions, the respondents have passed an order, wherein the claim of petitioner Nos.2, 11, 12 & 13 for regularization was rejected, as they did not fulfil the conditions for regularization and none of the juniors to the said petitioners were regularized. Services of all other petitioners were regularized. Earlier the petitioners have filed COCP No.261 of 2004, which was dismissed on 29.04.2005. The present petitions were adjourned sine die to await the decision of SLP (C) No.19713 of 2005 titled ‘State of COCP No.1105 of 2008 Punjab Vs. Sewa Singh’. The question in the said SLP has since been decided in Civil Appeal No.8306 of 2009 titled “Bhakra Beas Management Board and others Vs. Hari Chand” (alongwith other connected Civil Appeals including C.A.No.8308 of 2009) on 10.12.2009 and the matter has been remitted back to this Court for re-determining the question, whether the daily wage service prior to the regularization is to be counted for determining minimum qualifying service. The said question does not arise in the present contempt petitions, as the services of the petitioners have not been regularized. The earlier contempt petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 29.04.2005 and another COCP No.1390 of 2008 filed by another co-petitioner of the petitioners was also dismissed on 02.09.2008 for the reason that the petitioners have filed the contempt petition after 18 years and that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, in which the claim for regularization has been reconsidered and the earlier judgments have been set aside. In view of the above, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. 25.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2