SHIV CHARAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of the writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from his initial appointment.

(2.) Mr. Sammi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure P-3 which was issued by the Sub Divisional Engineer concerned and this annexure shows that during the year 1988-89 the petitioner has put in 297-1/2 days, during the year 1989-90, 262-1/2 days, during the year 1991-92, 258-1/2 days and during the year 1992-93, 264 days. He further submits that the point raised in this petition in squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Giri Raj v. State of Haryana,1997 2 RSJ 506.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel of the parties, I find that the point raised in this petition is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Giri Raj . Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in the above mentioned case of Giri Raj . Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with law laid down by this court in the case of Giri Raj . The parties are left to bear their own costs. With this order both CM 2783 of 1998 and CWP 4465 of 1997 stand disposed of.