- (1.) JAGDISH Bhalla, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents to regularise the service of the petitioner and to quash the impugned termination order dated 17-3-1983 which was based on three adverse entries.
(2.) AN ad-interim order was passed by this Court on 11-1-1984, on the basis of which the petitioner is continuing, performing his duties and. is getting his salary regularly. During this period, petitioner made representa tions against the aforesaid adverse entries which were allowed by orders dated 16-9-1989, 4-11-1989 and 8-11-1989. It is also interesting to note that there were in all 29 person, out of which the services of 27 persons were regularised. However, the peti tioner and one R. N. Shukla were not regularised and their services were terminated. Shukla approached this Court against his termination and regularisation of his services. It appears that his writ petition was dis missed. However, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Shukla filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the special leave was granted and by judgment and order dated 2-11-1988, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the respondents to reinstate and regularise the services of Shukla. The aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted hereunder : "special leave granted. Heard both the sides. Having taken into account all the relevant document and confidential reports, we are of the opinion that the services of the appellant should have been regularised. We accordingly allow this appeal and direct that the appellant should be reinstated in service and absorbed as a regular appointee with continuity of service. The reinstate ment will be without salary for the interregnum from the date of his termination till 31st October, 1988. The appellant will rejoin within 2 weeks. His services will be treated without break for the purposes of pension and for increments that might have become due to him. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to cost. " In the present case, the petitioner is still continuing and getting his salary regularly in view of the interim order of this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner Shri V. B. Singh, placed reliance upon the judgments reported in AIR 1978 SC 2q86-The State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal 1962 Lab 1c 1500-Dr. Girish Bihari v. State of U. P. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the doctrine of washing off, all the three adverse entries are no more in exis tence, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regularisation and there fore the order of termination is liable to be quashed and there is no justification for its continuation.;