Rajman Yadav & Ors. Vs the Panjab University, Chd.

Sr.	Case No.	Petitioner(s)	Respondent(s)
No.
2.	CWP-15639-2005 (O&M)	Surinder Singh and others	The Panjab University, Chandigarh
3.	CWP-6055-2005 (O&M)	Gurjit Singh and others	The Panjab University, Chandigarh
4.	CWP-8202-2005 (O&M)	Jai Pal and others	Panjab University, Chandigarh and others
5.	CWP-8541-2005 (O&M)	Avtar Singh and another	Panjab University, Chandigarh and others

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶14

Present: - Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate and Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners ***

¶15

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶16

There is no representation of the respondents. The matter is pending since 2004 and in view of averments of petitioners, there seems no reason to keep the matter in abeyance.

¶17

As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, the

¶18

same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.05 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

CWP-14650-2004 (O&M) & connected cases

¶20

-2-

¶21

and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-14650-2004 .

¶22

The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to consider them for regularization.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that most of the petitioners have already been regularized as per policy of 2014. The remaining are still working with the respondent. They may be regularized as per their turn. Their service may be protected.

¶24

By order dated 09.12.2008 of this Court, all the petitions were disposed of with a direction to respondent to frame policy for regularization of the petitioners. The said order was set aside by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.11.2009 passed in LPA No.295 of 2009 .

¶25

As per statement of learned counsel for the petitioners, except few, all other petitioners have already been regularized, thus, petitions qua them have rendered infructuous. The petitioners who are not regularized would not be substituted by another set of contractual employees in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab

¶26

and others, 2007 (13) SCC 292 . They would also be considered for regularization as per their turn and applicable policy.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions stand disposed of.

¶28

At this stage, no observation is made with respect to claim of contractual employees regarding time scale.

¶29

There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The MOHIT KUMAR 2025.08.05 17:09 I attest to the accuracy andrespondent is at liberty to move an appropriate application within three integrity of this order/judgment.

¶30

CWP-14650-2004 (O&M) & connected cases

¶31

-3-

¶32

months from today, if cause survives.

¶33