Punjab-Haryana High Court
Banso Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 December, 2023
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162948
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC: 162948
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
222
CWP No. 6564 -2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 18.12.2023
BANSO RANI . . .PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
. . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Ms. Aarti Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that
there is a likelihood that the petitioner is going to be replaced by another
employee on the same terms and conditions.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled for
consideration of her claim for the regularization of her services in terms of
the policy as notified by the respondents in the year 2011.
3. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for correct appreciation of
the issue in hand.
4. The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper in March 1999. The
petitioner continued working till March 2013 when her services were
dispensed with. The order dated 01.03.2013 terminating the services of the
petitioner was challenged by the petitioner before Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Hisar. The said order terminating the services of the petitioner
w.e.f 01.03.2013 was found to be invalid and vide Award of the Industrial
Tribunal-cum-labour Court dated 21.04.2017, the petitioner was directed to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162948
CWP No.6564 -2019 -2- 2023:PHHC: 162948
be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages from the date of
the demand notice i.e. 27.07.2015.
5. After the petitioner was reinstated in service, the petitioner
apprehended that she will be replaced by another employee .The further
prayer of the petitioner is that her claim should be considered for
regularization of her services under the policy of the year 2011 by which, the
part time workers were regularized in service.
6. In reply to the claim, the respondents have conceded the fact
that order terminating the services of the petitioner was set aside by the
labour Court in the year 2017 and the petitioner has already been reinstated
in service, but the petitioner cannot be regularized in service.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. Once, the petitioner has been reinstated in service with
continuity and with full back wages and it has already come on record that
the petitioner was appointed in March 1999 and it cant be fairly said that
petitioner is working with the respondents for the last about 24 years.
9. As per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal No. 6798 of 2019 titled as 'Prem Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh', decided on 02.09.2019, an employee who has rendered more
than two decades of service is entitled to be considered for regularization of
his/her services. Nothing has come on record that after being reinstated in
service, the claim of the petitioner was ever considered under policy issued
in the year 2011 under which part time workers were regularized in service,
including the employees who were junior to the petitioner and were similarly
situated. That being so, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162948
CWP No.6564 -2019 -2- 2023:PHHC: 162948
the petitioner under the policy issued in the year 2011 for the regularization
of services of the part time workers and pass an appropriate orders keeping
in view the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prem
Singh's case (Supra).
10. Till the said order is passed, the petitioner will be allowed to
continue in service and will not be replaced by another employee on the
same terms and conditions subject to the satisfactory record of the
petitioner.
11. The present petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
18.12.2023
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:162948
3 of 3
