RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted. Pleadings of the parties are complete. By consent, writ petition placed on board and called out for hearing.

(2.) This is yet another instance where the respondents have failed to comply with the orders passed by this Court and erroneously assumed that the petitioner does not fulfil the two conditions set out in the Government instructions contained in letter No. 6/13/93-2 GS dated March 8, 1994 (see Annexure P-1). The service breaks shown in Annexure P-l do not reflect the correct position because the petitioner's services were dispensed with by the respondents from February 1,1993, which gave rise to the filing of CO. C.P. No. 243 of 1993. This court vide order dated August 23, 1993, while disposing of the said C.O.C.P. recorded the undertaking given by Jagdish Rai on behalf of the respondents, that the services of the petitioner shall not be terminated till the decision of regularisation of his services is taken by the Government. If this was the undertaking in regard to the dispensing with the petitioner's services on February 1,1993, no advantage can be taken thereof by the respondents. For the reasons recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 9729 of 1994, disposed of today, we direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services without any further delay. Writ petition allowed in the above terms.