Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048060
CWP-23144-2023 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:048060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113 CWP-23144-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.04.2024
SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr.B.S.Bhinder, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are seeking directions to respondents to regularize them
w.e.f. 2001. They are further seeking direction to the respondents to count
period of service rendered before the date of regularization for all service
benefits.
2. The petitioners joined respondents as Class IV employees. They
came to be regularized in 2009. The petitioners claim that they were eligible for
regularization in 2001 whereas they have been regularized in 2009. As they
were eligible for regularization in terms of policy of 2001, the respondent
wrongly did not regularize them. They should be treated as regularized w.e.f.
2001. The petitioners are further claiming that period of service rendered prior
to 2009 should be counted for the purpose of pension and other benefits.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048060
CWP-23144-2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:048060
3. Mr.B.S.Bhinder, Advocate submits that case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab
in CWP No.2371 of 2010. The respondent while passing order dated
24.04.2020 has kept the matter pending for further consideration.
4. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, fairly concedes that the petitioners are
entitled to service benefits as per judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal's case
(supra), however, he submits that they cannot be considered as regularized as
per policy 2001.
5. The petitioners concededly were working with respondent on
temporary basis prior to 2009. They are claiming that they should be regularized
in terms of policy of 2001. Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi,
2006 (4) SCC 1 held that temporary or adhoc or part time employees cannot be
regularized, however Court granted a window for employees who were working
for last 10 years. The State Government in 2006 framed policy for
regularization of temporary/part time employees. The petitioners were
regularized in 2009. In view of judgment of Supreme Court, the petitioners
cannot claim regularization from 2001.
6. The petitioners are entitled to service benefits as have been
extended by Division Bench of this Court in Harbans Lal's case (supra). As
per order dated 24.04.2020, the respondent has kept matter of few employees for
consideration. If the respondent has not finally adjudicated claim of petitioners
qua counting of period of service rendered prior to regularization for the purpose
of qualifying service for service benefits, an appropriate order in terms of in
Harbans Lal's case (supra) shall be passed within two months from today.
7. Disposed of in above terms.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048060
CWP-23144-2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:048060
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
1.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
09.04.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
