Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PRESENT writ petition under Article of the Constitution of India has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to consider the petitioner's case for regularisation extending relaxation in age. According to the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner was working on the post of Chainman and his services were dispensed with in the year 1990 orally. By an interim order, passed in writ petition No. 6444 of 1990, the opposite parties were directed to permit the petitioner to continue in service in case juniors were retained. The petitioner has been continuing in service in pursuance to the order passed by this Court. Later on, the writ petition was allowed by order dated 30.1.1996. The order of termination was set aside with all consequential benefits.
(3.) THE submission of the petitioner's counsel is that in spite of the fact that the writ petition has been allowed, the petitioner's case has not been considered for regularisation on the post of Chainman on the ground of his becoming over age. The respondents have not considered relaxation in age. He further submits that because of pendency of the matter in this Court with regard to termination of service, the petitioner could not be considered earlier for regularisation. Further submission is that the petitioner is not at fault. Because of pendency of the writ petition in case some delay has been caused, for that the petitioner should not be punished. Argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel seems to carry weight.;