Dharambir And Ors vs State Of Hry. And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 17074 P&H

CWP-1231-2007                                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(201)                            CWP-1231-2007
                                 Date of Decision : December 16, 2022


Dharambir and others                                        .. Petitioners


                                 Versus

State of Haryana and others                                 .. Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present: Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

In the present writ petition, the prayer of the petitioners is that

they are working as part time workers in various Schools for the past more

than three decades.

As per the petitioners, the respondent-State had issued various

policies for regularizing the services of part time employees and one such

policy was issued on 30.12.1998/25.02.1999 or the subsequent policy of

11.11.2003 according to which, the claim of the petitioners was to be

considered and as the petitioners were fully eligible for regularization of

their services under the said policy, the respondents were under an

obligation to grant the petitioners the benefit of the same.

In reply to the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have

filed a reply wherein, it has been mentioned that the services of the part time

employees were to be regularized on the basis of their seniority and

1 of 3

availability of regular sanctioned posts and keeping in view the said fact, as

the seniors of the petitioners are still waiting for regularization of their

service, no benefit with regard to the regularization of service could be

extended to the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record with their able assistance.

Though, neither the petitioners nor the respondents have

mentioned as to how many regular sanctioned posts exists with the

respondents so as to consider the claim of the eligibles for regularization of

their services so as to oust the petitioners from the zone of consideration.

It has been conceded before this Court that the services of the

part time employees could be regularized by the respondent-State under the

policy dated 30.12.1998/25.02.1999 or the subsequent policy of 11.11.2003.

That being so, the petitioners have a right to be considered for

regularization under the said policies.

No fact has been brought to the notice of the petitioners to take

out the petitioners from the zone of consideration though a bald statement

has been made in the reply that there were not enough posts to regularize the

services of the petitioners.

Keeping in view the above, the respondents are directed to

consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services

under the policy dated 30.12.1998/25.02.1999 or the subsequent policy of

11.11.2003 especially when petitioner No.1 in CWP No.1231 of 2007 has

already been regularized now by passing a speaking order with regard to the

entitlement of the petitioners for the regularization of their services under

the said policy. In case, the respondents come to the conclusion that services

2 of 3

of the petitioners No. 2 to 4 cannot be regularized, detailed reason should

be mentioned including the number of posts available and seniority of the

petitioners.

Further, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 titled as Prem Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh and

others, decided on 02.09.2019, according to which, an employee, who has

rendered two decades of service with a Department, needs to be regularized,

be kept in mind while passing the speaking order.

The said order be passed by the respondents within a period of

eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order. In case after the passing of

the speaking order, it is found that the petitioners are found entitled for any

relief, the same be also extended to them without any further delay.

The present petition is disposed of in above terms.

December 16, 2022                       (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                         JUDGE


               Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
               Whether reportable       : Yes




                                       3 of 3