JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2.8.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposing of the writ petition in terms of its earlier judgment dated 12.8.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No.1287 of 2003.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

The First Respondent was appointed on 9.5.1982 in the post of a Driver on a work charge basis. He continued to be employed in the said capacity without being regularized. Respondent No.1 filed C.W.A. No.7389 of 2004 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking regularization of his service. As per the impugned order, the said writ petition was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 12.8.2003 in C.W.P. No.1287 of 2003

4. Some Work charged employees like Respondent No.1 filed C.W.A. No.1287 of 2003 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana seeking regularization of their service. By an order dated 12.8.2003 (Annexure P-3), a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1287 of 2003 directed as under :

"In the case in hand, the petitioners have rendered more than 16 years of regular service with the SYL Canal Project. They are drawing running pay scale. Their service books have been maintained by the Department and their provident fund is being deducted. They all fulfill the requisite qualifications for the post held by them. Thus, present one is not even a case of relaxation of qualification for the absorption of the petitioners. The Government has issued instructions for absorption of the petitioners. The Government has issued instructions for absorption of the workers who have rendered three years of regular service. In spite of all this, the petitioners have not been regularized in the service. The action of the concerned authorities in not regularizing the services of the petitioners is contrary to the letter and spirit of the instructions issued by the Government, which also runs counter to the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned Authorities. In Civil Writ Petition No.16959 of 2000 (Girdhari Lal Vs. P.R.T.C. etc.), it was held by this Court that even a part time employee, working for a few hours every day, is entitled to regularization under the instructions issued by the State Government. To sum up, it is the admitted position that the authorities have adopted a pick and choose policy while regularizing the services of the work- charge employees of the SYL Canal Project. Even as per the instructions dated January 23, 2001 (Annexure P-11) the regularization is to be made on the basis of seniority. However, the principle of seniority has been given goodbye. Keeping in view the aforementioned decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, we find lease justification in the conduct of the authorities in not regularizing the services of the petitioners despite their having rendered more than 16 years of service.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential reliefs within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

5. A Special Leave Petition was preferred thereagainst which was marked as SLP (C) No.24325 of 2003. By an order dated 27.2.2004 notices were issued. It appears that similar matters came up before this Court and a Division Bench in its order dated 26.3.2007 directed as under :

"Leave granted.

Counsel on both the sides submit that the case in hand is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Lakhwinder Singh & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 502. In view thereof, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and orders under challenge are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the writ petitions. It is made clear that this court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the concerned employees."

6. Indisputably, a