JUDGMENT 1. - Counsel submits that present petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist vide order dated 09.10.2009 on contract basis and his grievance is that in terms of clause (8) of circular dated 09.08.2010 which postulates that such persons who were engaged on contract basis to work as Pharmacist, Computer Operator and Accountant would be continued in the earlier appointment, if in their place the newly appointed incumbents pursuant to fresh advertisement have not joined, right of the petitioner may be protected. 2. Counsel further submits that petitioner is still working and the respondent cannot be held to be justified in substituting him by another set of contractual employee. Counsel further submits that identical CWP-181/2011 (Dinesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State & Ors.) has been decided by coordinate bench vide order dated 10.01.2011 and in the light thereof the present petition may also be decided. 3. Without going into merits of the case any further, in the light of order dated 10.01.2011 (supra), this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with direction to the petitioner to make fresh representation to the competent authority who may independently examine his grievance so as to ensure that if he is already working on contract basis and if so far no-one has joined in the place of his appointment where he is discharging duties, he may be allowed to continue on the same terms and conditions. The Director, Mission NRHM, may also decide his representation within two weeks thereafter, decision whereof may be communicated to the petitioner, who if still feels aggrieved will be free to challenge the same in the appropriate proceedings under law.With these directions/observations, the petition stands disposed of.Writ petition disposed of as above. *******