(1.) The present case is a classic example of the arbitrariness and highhandedness on the part of the respondents, particularly the respondent no.3.
(2.) The petitioners in the present case have been working with the respondents since 1992 as daily wage employees. They had filed a writ petition in 2010 vide W.P.S. No. 6612/2010 claiming for regularization in services in the light of the circular of the State Government dated 5.3.2008. The said writ petition stood allowed vide order dated 18.2011. The operative part of the order dated 18.2011 is reproduced herein under:
(3.) Since there was a non-compliance of the said order, the petitioners were forced to file a contempt case vide Contempt Case (C) No.130/2011 which stood disposed of in the light of the instructions brought before the Court wherein it was shown that the case of the petitioners was pending consideration before the higher authorities for compliance. The said contempt petition was accordingly disposed of.