Punjab-Haryana High Court
Som Dutt vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 29 October, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 11487 of 1988
Date of decision: 29.10.2010
Som Dutt ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
This writ petition was filed in the year 1988 and was admitted on 19.12.1988. The prayer made in the writ petition is for issuing writ of mandamus or certiorari commanding the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner, in view of the directions contained in the case of Piara Singh versus State of Haryana etc. (CWP No. 72 of 1988) decided on 26.09.1988. The case was admitted and has come up for hearing.
The legal position has undergone a drastic change in regard to laws relating to regularisation. Now the cases of regularisation are to be governed by the law laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others 2006 (4) Supreme Court Cases 1.
No one has appeared to represent the petitioner when the writ has come up for hearing. Notice was issued to counsel, Sh. S.N. Singla, through whom this writ petition was filed. Actual date notice Civil Writ Petition No. 11487 of 1988 -2- was issued to the petitioner. A report was received that the advocate was not found in the Bar. Thereafter, actual date notice was sent to the petitioner. A report has now been received disclosing that the notice issued to the petitioner has been received back with the report that no such person is residing at the given address. It has, therefore, become impossible to serve the petitioner. Keeping this fact in view, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and is being decided on merit.
In view of the clear law position now enunciated in the case of Umadevi (supra) claim of the petitioner for regularisation would not be maintainable to an extent. The case of regularisation for which approach is made in the year 1988 would now be almost rendered infructuous.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
October 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE