JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. The petitioner filed CWP No. 2117 of 1997 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case for regularization of her services.
2. Alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner earlier filed COCP No. 1372 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court on 6.7.1998 in the following terms:
In the written statement filed by the respondents, it is averred that the claim of the petitioners was considered by the competent authority and by an order dated 3.7.1998 the same has been rejected holding that their case was not covered under the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and that the services of the petitioners could not be regularized. A copy of the order has been attached as an annexure with the written statement. Since the order has been passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, no case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents. In case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, it will be open to her to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
3. It appears that without impugning the order dated 3.7.1998, vide which the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the authorities, she has filed the second contempt petition alleging that services of some of her copetitioners, who had also filed contempt petitions, have since been regularised.
4. In response to the show cause notice, an affidavit has been filed by Piara Singh, District Education Officer (SE), Ropar. In the said affidavit, it is denied that any regularization orders have been issued in respect of any of the petitioners in CWP No. 2117 of 1997.
5. It appears that the petitioner’s main grievance is that though her previous contempt petition was dismissed on 6.7.1998, the respondents at their own have subsequently regularized services of her co-petitioners. Though, it is difficult to hold that the respondents have willfully or deliberately violated any directions issued by this Court, more so when they had promptly considered the petitioner’s claim for regularization of her services, however, rejection of the petitioner’s claim in the year 1997-98, cannot be construed by the respondents to mean that for all times to come her claim for regularization of services is not to be reconsidered. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that if the claim of the co-petitioners and/or similarly situated persons has been considered and their services have been regularized, the petitioner’s claim can also be reconsidered as per government policy in accordance with law within a period of three months of the receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Rule discharged.