- (1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction issued by this court in its order dated 11/8/1995 has not been complied with.
(2.) By this order the respondents herein were directed to consider the cases of the petitioner in terms of an earlier order dated 28/2/1995 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9 of 1988. In the order of 28/2/1995 the respondents were directed to consider the cases of the petitioners afresh with regard to the regularisation of their services keeping in view the law laid down by this court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh. The decision was to be taken after hearing the parties.
(3.) The respondents have now framed rules with regard to the regularisation. There were 42 persons who were working as part time tubewell Operators and as per the rules 26 persons have been regularised. According to the respondents the others cannot be regularised because they filed their representation after the cut-off date. Even though no such hearing was granted to the petitioners we do not think it appropriate to take proceedings for contempt because action has been taken pursuant to the direction of this court which has resulted in framing of rules and regularisation of 26 out of 42 persons. If the other persons who have not been regularised have any grievance, they are at liberty to seek relief by filing an independent action challenging the decision of the respondents for not regularising them. Filing of the contempt petition, in our opinion, is not a proper remedy.;