Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047620
CWP-7893-2024 -1- 2024:PHHC:047620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
124 CWP-7893-2024
Date of Decision :08.04.2024
Sanjeev Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Jagdeep S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
(keeping in view advance copy served)
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, challenge is to impugned orders dated
21.11.2023 (Annexure P-19) as well as order dated 09.01.2024 (Annexure
P-20) passed by the respondents, by which, the petitioners have been
declined the benefit of regularization of service on completion of 240 days
in service.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the benefit
of regularization has been extended to the similarly situated employees, the
petitioners should have been granted the said benefit, which benefit has been
arbitrarily and illegally declined by the respondents.
3. Keeping in view the advance copy served, Mr. Harish Nain,
AAG, Haryana appears and submits that service of the petitioners have
already been regularized under the regularization policy dated 01.10.2003
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047620
CWP-7893-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:047620
and the present petition was filed by the petitioners claiming the relief only
in the year 2020 and, hence, keeping in view the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in LPA-1662-2015 titled as Sukhbir Singh and others
vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.08.2016, claim of the
petitioners has rightly been rejected by the authorities concerned on the
basis of the said judgment.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. It is a conceded fact that services of the petitioners have been
regularized under the regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 and after the
grant of the said benefit, the petitioners never raised any grievance before
filing a legal notice in the year 2021 i.e. much after the grant of benefit of
regularization in the year 2003. Thereafter a writ petition was filed by the
petitioners in the year 2021 and after considering the claim of the
petitioners, this Court directed the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioners by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law and the
fresh orders have been passed by the respondents, which have been
impugned in the present petition.
6. It is clear that petitioners are claiming benefit of antedated
regularization of their service in the year 2021 on the ground that similarly
situated employees have been granted the benefit of regularization of their
service upon completion of 240 days in service which benefit should be
extended to them as well.
7. The said question of law has already been decided by the
Division bench of this Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra). Relevant paragraphs
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047620
CWP-7893-2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:047620
of the said judgment are as under:-
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the record. There is no denial to the fact that after
regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.04.1993, the
appellants woke up first time in the year 2012 and raised
claim for retrospective regularization. The said claim was
based upon a decision of this Court dated 19.12.2011
rendered in the case of Jaimal Singh and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another (CWP No.6135 of 1998) where this
Court directed the State Government to identify the Depot-
wise requirement of post of Ticket Verifiers and sanction
the requisite posts so that their services could be
regularized. The State Government undertook such
exercise and the writ-petitioners in that case were made
regular w.e.f. 01.04.1987.
6. It is in the light of these facts that the appellants also
wanted the dates of regularization of their services to be
antedated.
7. The fact that the appellants took no steps to claim the
benefit of Government policy of 1979 for over 12 years is
not in dispute. They cannot take the benefit of Jaimal
Singh's case (supra) as the writ petitioners in that case had
approached this Court in the year 1998 while the appellants
remained fence-sitters. Even as per Jaimal Singh's case,
there was no cutoff date for the purpose of regularization
of services. Much was to depend upon as to how many
posts were sanctioned in a depot. All the writ petitioners of
that case were not made regular w.e.f. 01.04.1987.
8. Assuming that the appellants are similarly placed yet
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047620
CWP-7893-2024 -4- 2024:PHHC:047620
they lost their right as neither such claim was put up before
the competent authority nor they approached any other
forum within a reasonable period. In this view of the
matter, the rejection of their claim by learned Single Judge
on the ground of delay and laches calls for no interference
by this Court."
8. A bare perusal of the above would show that benefit of
regularization was claimed upon completion of 240 days after the delay of
15 years, which prayer was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court.
Claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said judgment against
them as in the present case, claim was raised after regularization of their
services and that too without raising any grievance for a period of more than
15 years.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to
distinguish that judgment in Sukhbir Singh (supra) is not applicable upon
the case of the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are
entitled for regularization of their services keeping in view the judgment of
this Court in Piara Singh vs. State of Haryana wherein, benefit of
regularization has been granted under regularization policy of 1979.
11. It may be noticed that judgment in Piara Singh (supra) has
already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while passing
order in Civil Appeal No.2979-1992 with connected appeals, titled as State
of Haryana vs. Piara Singh, decided on 12.08.1992. Relevant paragraph of
the judgment is as under:-
"19. The High Court has also directed that all those
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047620
CWP-7893-2024 -5- 2024:PHHC:047620
employees who fall within the definition of "workmen"
contained in the Industrial Disputes Act will also be entitled
to regularisation on par with the work-charged employees in
whose case it is directed that they should be regularised on
completing five years of service in Punjab and four years of
service in Haryana. This direction is given in favour of those
casual labour and daily wagers who fall within the definition
of workmen. In so far as work- charged employees, daily
wage workers and casual labourers who do not fall within
the definition of workmen are concerned, the High Court
had directed their regularization on completion of one year's
service. We find this direction as untenable as the direction
in the case of adhoc/temporary employees. In so far as the
persons belonging to the above categories and who fall
within the definition of Workmen are concerned, the terms
in which the direction has been given by the High Court
cannot be sustained. While we agree that persons belonging
to these categories continuing over a number of years have a
right to claim regularisation and the authorities are under an
obligation to consider their case for regularisation in a fair
manner, keeping in view the principles enunciated by this
court, the blanket direction given cannot be sustained. We
need not, however, pursue this discussion in view of the
orders of the Government of Haryana contained in the letter
dated 6.4.1990 which provide for regularisation of these
persons on completion of ten years. We shall presently
notice the contents of the said letter. In view of the same, no
further directions are called for at this stage. The
Government of Punjab, of course, does not appear to have
issued any such orders governing these categories.
Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the Government of
Punjab to verify the vacancy position in the categories of
daily wagers and casual labour and frame a scheme of
absorption in a fair and just manner providing for
regularisation of these persons, having regard to their length
of service and other relevant conditions. As many persons as
possible shall be absorbed. The scheme shall be framed
within six months from today."
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047620
CWP-7893-2024 -6- 2024:PHHC:047620
12. Keeping in view the fact that judgment in Piara Singh (supra)
has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and even
otherwise, no such claim can be raised by the petitioners at this stage.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noticed
hereinbefore, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the
writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
April 08, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
