JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-8/A) denying him the benefit of regularization w.e.f. 18.12.1985, the date when the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board as similarly placed employees have been granted the same by this Court in CWP No. 7732 of 1993 titled as Krishan Kumar Verma vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 02.11.1993 (Annexure P- 9) and CWP No. 11029 of 2009 titled as Virender Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-10). 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that vide the impugned orders, the claim of the petitioner has merely been declined on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit as has been claimed by him as no directions have been issued by this Court to the respondents to consider the claim for regularization of the petitioner in service w.e.f. 18.12.1985. The fact that the claim of the petitioner is similar to that of the petitioners in Krishan Kumar Verma and Virender Kumar’s case (supra) has not been denied. He, therefore, contends that this ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain and if the said action of the respondents is accepted that would virtually force each and every employee, who is similarly placed, to approach this Court for reliefs, which have been granted to the similarly placed employees and have been given effect to by the respondents. He, accordingly, prays for quashing of the impugned orders and directing the respondents to grant the petitioner regularization of his services w.e.f. 18.12.1985. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and is not entitled to the benefit, as has been claimed by him. However, he could not dispute the fact that the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board along with Krishan Kumar Verma and Virender Kumar (supra). He, accordingly, prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. 5. He, accordingly, prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case. 5. Delay, as has been taken as a ground for non-granting the benefit to the petitioner, cannot be accepted as a ground and the reason that the legal notice served by the petitioner dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-7), which was decided vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-8), was not rejected on the ground of delay but was only rejected on the ground that no directions have been issued by this Court for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 18.12.1985 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board. 6. Similar is the ground in the order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-8/A) passed by the respondents. The State of Haryana has adopted a litigation policy, according to which it has been decided by the Government of Haryana to grant benefit to all similarly placed employees, which has been settled by this Court and has attained finality and the same has to be given effect to. The impugned orders are not sustainable as the factum that the claim of the petitioner is similar and he is identically placed as Sh. Krishan Kumar Verma and Virender Kumar, who were petitioners in CWP No. 7732 of 1993 decided on 02.11.1993 (Annexure P-9) and CWP No. 11029 of 2009 decided on 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-10), whose writ petitions have been allowed, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied merely because he has not approached the Court for claiming the same benefit. If an issue has been finally settled by this Court and the representation to this effect is made within a reasonable time for claiming the same benefit by an employee, State is required to give effect to the said order passed by this Court viz-a-viz other similarly placed employees. By not doing so, they are discriminating against the similarly placed employes, which results in increase in litigation and forcing the employees to approach this Court time and again for the issue, which is settled by this Court. 7. By not doing so, they are discriminating against the similarly placed employes, which results in increase in litigation and forcing the employees to approach this Court time and again for the issue, which is settled by this Court. 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the claim, as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, stands finally settled by this Court in Krishan Kumar Verma and Virender Kumar’s cases (Annexures P-9 and P-10) (supra). Placing reliance upon the said decisions by this Court, the legal notice dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-7) was served by the petitioner upon the respondents. Respondents were required to, in the light of the litigation policy, give effect to the said judgments as the petitioner was found to be similarly placed. The ground taken by the respondents for not granting the same benefit to the petitioner merely because he has not approached the Court, cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.04.2011 (Annexure P-8) and 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-8/A) are hereby quashed. 9. A direction is issued to the respondents to grant regularization to the petitioner from the date of the recommendation made by the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board vide communication dated 18.12.1985. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits except arrears. ---------0.B.S.0------------