JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis with the respondent-University on 30.12.1999 in the pay scale of `2520- 4140. Petitioner made several representations seeking regularization. Matter was placed before the Board of Management in its 83rd Meeting held on 12.11.2010 for consideration. Respondent-University referred the matter of four ad hoc employees for regularisation including the case of the petitioner to the Government. It was rejected on 19.4.2011. The matter was again placed before the Board of Management of the University, in its 89th meeting held on 13.9.2012 for consideration of the case of petitioner and other similarly situate persons. State Government turned down the plea of the respondent-University on 15.12.2012. 2. Respondent-University has already regularised services of four incumbents on the basis of Instructions dated 30.11.1996. Respondent-University can not discriminate the petitioner by not regularizing services of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons, who have worked for more than 14 years. Action of the respondent-University in not regularising services of the petitioner amounts to unfair labour practice. Respondent-University is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its action can not be arbitrary. Petitioner has already attained the age of 51 years. His future is still uncertain. Respondent-State has already taken decision to regularise services of workmen, who have completed 7 years service with 240 days in each calendar year. In the instant case, petitioner has worked for more than 14 years. Despite that petitioner has been denied regularisation only on the ground that he was appointed on ad hoc basis and not on daily wage basis. Petitioner is superior to the daily waged workmen. He should have also been regularised on the analogy of daily waged workmen. 3. State Government while dealing with the case sent by the Board of Management should have taken into consideration various regularisation policies framed by it for its employees as well as for the employees of the Government undertakings. It was always open to the respondent-University to adopt notification (s) governing the regularisation, or, in the alternative, to frame its own policy at par with the policy framed by the State Government to redress the grievances of the petitioner and other similarly situate persons. 4. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularised after completion of 7 years uninterrupted service with all consequential benefits. 4. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularised after completion of 7 years uninterrupted service with all consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.