Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basant Ram vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana ... on 29 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063312-DB
LPA-2335 of 2016 and 355 of 2017 2024:PHHC:063312-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. LPA-2335 of 2016 (O&M)
Basant Ram . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural
University through Registrar and ors. . . . . Respondents
2. LPA- 355 of 2017 (O&M)
Hari Chand . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural
University through Registrar and ors. . . . . Respondents
Date of decision:-29.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA No. 2335-2016.
Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA No. 355-2017
(Through VC/Hybrid Mode).
Mr. Shreenath. A. Khemka, Advocate
for the respondents in LPA No. 2335-2016.
Mr. Mukul Khatri, Advocate
for respondent No. 1 in LPA No. 355-2017.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of the above two Letters Patent Appeals
wherein challenge is to the judgment dated 29.08.2016, whereby the writ
petitions filed by the petitioners (appellants herein) seeking regularization on the
post of Laboratory Attendant, have been dismissed and their regularization on
the post of Beldar was upheld by the respondent, vide impugned order dated
17.06.1995.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063312-DB
LPA-2335 of 2016 and 355 of 2017 2024:PHHC:063312-DB
2. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioners submits that the petitioners
have worked on the fields and in the tube-well operation as well as in Laboratory
as daily labourers and therefore their cases were taken up for regularization.
They should have been regularized either as Laboratory Attendants or Tubewell
Operators, as they were skilled labourers.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the University submits that the
petitioners have already retired and the issue has become academic. He further
submits that the petitioners had been regularized on the posts of Beldar as they
were daily labourers and cannot be said to be posted either as Tube-well
Operators or Lab Attendants at any given point of time.
4. We have considered the submissions and found that the reasons for
rejecting the claim, as has come on record, by the learned Single Judge will not
be acceptable to us. The conclusion is found to be correct and the reasons are as
under:-
(i) The writ-petitioners were working admittedly as daily wage
labourers. The daily wage labourers may be assigned labour job at various
places. The experience certificate, as placed on record as Annexure P-3 reflects
that Basant Ram was made to work at the field, tubewell operations or in the
laboratory work. However, this could not, in any manner, reflect that they were
posted as Laboratory Attendants or Tubewell Operators. Hence, there was no
occasion to designate them on the said posts and the designation as Beldar, as
assigned to them while regularizing their services, cannot be said to be
unjustified. It is also noticed that subsequently after having been regularized,
they have been working on higher posts. They may have been granted higher
benefits, if any.
5. Be that as it may, the claim of writ-petitioners for regularization on
the posts as pointed above, is failed. The writ petition has rightly been rejected
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063312-DB
LPA-2335 of 2016 and 355 of 2017 2024:PHHC:063312-DB
by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by learned Single Judge does
not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeals are
dismissed.
6. Pending applications, if any, is/are also disposed of.
[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
JUDGE
[SUDEEPTI SHARMA]
JUDGE
April 29, 2024
G Arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
