Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Phal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:057608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 105
Civil Writ Petition No.9473 of 2023
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
Ram Phal
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
...
PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
. . .
Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral)
The petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.1993, i.e., date on which his junior namely Baljit
Singh son of Haria was regularised in terms of order dated 02.12.2022,
Annexure P-12, passed in LPA No.688/2021 titled State of Haryana vs.
Balwinder Singh & others.
2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that SLPs
against the Division Bench judgment in Balwinder Singh case, Annexure
P-12, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court, vide order dated
09.01.2024. Thereupon, on the issue of regularisation this Court decided a
batch of petitions alongwith Civil Writ Petition No.2158 of 2020 titled
Ashish Sharma & others vs. State of Haryana & others, directing as under:
2024:PHHC:057608
35. Hence, in light of the above mentioned facts and position of
law, the petitioners have a right to seek regularization of their
services with effect from the date benefit of regularization of
services has been extended to an employee junior to them in
case, the petitioners fulfill the terms and conditions of the
applicable regularization policy which is in force and the
respondent -State is directed to regularize their service in case
the petitioners fulfills the qualification/conditions as mentioned
in the applicable regularization policy.
36. With respect to the condition of having three years of
service with 240 days of work in each year as on the date an
employee shall become eligible to claim regularization of
his/her services in terms of the regularization policy dated
01.10.2003 or any other regularization policy, the services of
the employee from the date of his/her initial appointment shall
be considered for the purpose of qualifying the said condition.
In case, the petitioners has worked for 240 days in any of the 3
years upto the date of regularization policy, said petitioners will
be considered eligible under the policy in which the benefit has
been claimed.
37. Further, in case, any employee junior to the petitioners, has
been regularized in service, which fact in case is established
before the respondent authorities by the petitioners, the said
petitioners will get the right of regularization of their services
from the date when the services of the employee junior to them
has been regularized if the said petitioners fulfills all the
requisite of relevant regularization policy and respondent-State
shall fix the date of regularization of such employee from the
date his/her junior was regularized in service as has been
directed in the case of Balwinder Singh (Supra).
38. It is further directed that in case the respondent-State does
not have any sanctioned post so as to regularize the services of
the petitioners the respondent-State shall create appropriate
posts which can be of diminishing nature or otherwise as may
be deemed appropriate by the respondent-State in light of
position of law observed herein before, keeping in view the
decision of the respondent-State dated 21.12.2018.
2024:PHHC:057608
39. The Respondent-State is hereby directed to examine each
and every case of petitioners in terms of the directions given
herein before and pass appropriate speaking order. In case, the
respondent-State is of the view that any petitioner does not
qualify any condition of the applicable regularization policy, the
respondent-State shall pass order giving details as to how the
petitioner does not qualify the applicable condition in terms of
the regularization policy under which the petitioner raised
his/her claim. In case it is found that there is no difference
between the petitioner and his/her junior whose services had
been regularized prior in time, the respondent shall pass an
order fixing the date regularizing the services of such petitioner
in terms of the directions given herein before i.e. from the date
services of the employee junior to the petitioner were
regularized.
40. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a
plea that in some cases on the ground that the petitioners have
been appointed prior to 1996, their claims has been rejected
which condition has already been set aside by a co-ordinate
bench of this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.1582 of 2018 titled as
'Gobind v. State of Haryana and others', decided on
13.03.2019.
41. Learned counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute
the said factum and submits that no claim will be rejected by the
respondent- State on the ground that the petitioners claiming
benefit of regularization were not appointed prior to the year
1996 as per the aforesaid judgment.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
petitioner will be satisfied in case respondents are directed to decide legal
notice dated 06.02.2023, Annexure P-13, in terms of the law laid down in
Balwinder Singh case, in a specific period.
4. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana, submits that the pending legal notice, dated 06.02.2023, will be
2024:PHHC:057608
decided by respondent No.2, by passing a speaking order, in the light of
judgments mentioned hereinabove, within three months.
5. In view of the statement made, learned counsel for the
petitioner has no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms thereof.
6. Ordered accordingly.
(Tribhuvan Dahiya)
Judge
April 29, 2024
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
