Punjab-Haryana High Court
Roshni Devi And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100140
CWP-9637-1999 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
254
CWP-9637-1999 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.08.2024
Roshni Devi and Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The claim of the petitioners for regularisation, though was declined,
however, a similarly situated employee namely Sona Devi, who had filed the writ
petition No.CWP-8519-1999, with which the present petition was ordered to be
heard, as per order dated 28.08.2001, was regularised vide order dated 16.12.2002
w.e.f. 17.10.2002 and the petition was therefore, disposed of as having been
rendered infructuous. Relevant para of the same reads thus:
"Learned State counsel has produced copy of order dated
16.12.2002, whereby services of the petitioner has been
regularised w.e.f. 17.10.2002 and it has also been stated in the
said order that her services could not be regular earlier because
she was not qualifying the conditions mentioned in the Chief
Secretary to Government Haryana letter No.6/47/98-IGSI dated
01.02.1999. He further submits that the petitioner has also
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
Copy of order dated 16.12.2002 is taken on record."
2. Learned counsel on instructions submits that the
claim of the petitioners be reconsidered in light of the aforesaid as
also the judgment passed by this Court in a bunch of petitions allowed on
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100140
CWP-9637-1999 (O&M) - 2-
13.03.2024 titled as Ashish Sharma and Others vs. State of Haryana and
Others in CWP-2158-2020, by taking into account submissions of either side and
relying on the aforesaid judgment, relevant paras whereof read thus:
" xx xx xx
25. Hence, the objections being raised by the respondents-State that
the petitioners were not appointed against the regular sanctioned post
or, there does not exist any regular post so as to regularize the
services of the petitioners, is contrary to their own decision dated
21.12.2018 and cannot be accepted so as to deny the petitioners
benefit of regularization of their services from the date services of
employees junior to them have been regularized.
26. Even otherwise, once an employee has worked for more than a
decade and the work of the said post exists, it is the duty of the
respondents to create a post so as to allow the said employee to
continue in service. Being a welfare State, the State has to take care
of its employees rather than taking all kinds of objections so as to
defeat the claim of the employees which is otherwise covered under
the applicable regularization policy issued by the State itself. Hence,
the objections that there is no regular sanctioned post so as to
regularize the services of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
27. Further, the said objection of the respondents-State with regard to
the ground that there is no regular sanctioned post cannot also be
accepted on the ground that in case any junior of the petitioners, has
been regularized in service under the same regularization policy, the
senior employee will ipso facto become entitled for regularization of
his/her services from the date the services of his/her junior stood
regularized subject to fulfillment of conditions as mentioned in the
applicable regularization policy. Hence, once, in Balwinder Singh'
case (Supra) it has already come on record that services of large
number of employees who were junior to their colleagues, were
regularized in a pick and choose manner and directions were given to
regularize the services of senior employees on that ground itself by
this Hon'ble Court while deciding the said case which judgment has
attained finality, the respondents now cannot take a plea that the
senior employees cannot be regularized in service on the ground of
nonavailability of the sanctioned post. Once, the services of junior
have been regularized the senior employee will ipso facto get the
right for regularization of his/her services even if the said benefit has
to be extended by creating a post for the very purpose.
28. The last objection which has been raised by the learned counsel
for respondent-State is that after the judgment passed in Uma Devi' s
case (Supra), no benefit of regularization can be claimed.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100140
CWP-9637-1999 (O&M) - 3-
29. It may be noticed that once, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Prem Singh' s case (supra) after having noticed the position of
lawsettled in Uma Devi' s case (Supra) has carved out an exception
so as to give directions to regularize services of employees who had
continued to work for a period of more than 10 years and the said
judgment has been brought into operation so as to give benefits of
regularization to employees who have even superannuated without
getting their services regularized, therefore, in the light of the same,
the contention of the respondents that the benefit of regularization
cannot be given in view of the judgment passed in Uma Devi' s case
(supra) cannot be sustained and is accordingly rejected, moreover, it
is a conceded fact that all the petitioners who are seeking
regularization of their services have more than 10 years of service to
their credit.
xx xx xx
31. With regard to the judgment passed in Vibhuti Shankar
Pandey's case (Supra), which has been relied by the respondent-
State herein above, the same cannot be made applicable in the present
case. In the Judgment passed in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey's case
(Supra), there were no such claim that the similarly situated
employees have been regularized in services, as, in Vibhuti Shankar
Pandey' s case (Supra), the claim of regularization was made despite
the fact that the employees did not fulfill the qualification required
for appointment on the post in question, which fact is missing in the
present case. Also as per conceded facts, in the present case for the
purpose of regularizing services of employees who are similarly
situated to the petitioners, directions have been given by co-ordinate
bench of this Court in Balwinder Singh' s case (Supra), and the said
directions have already been upheld up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India. Rather some of the similarly situated employees have been
granted the benefit of regularization of their services from the date
services of employees junior to them were regularized even before
the said SLP was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
which fact is clear from the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
xx xx xx
33. With respect to the argument of learned counsel for the
respondent-State pertaining to the claim of petitioners being barred
on account of delay, it may be noticed that the case of the similarly
situated employees have already been allowed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Balwinder Singh (supra), which judgment
has already been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and even
the SLP has been dismissed on 09.01.2024. Once, the actual benefit
to the similarly situated employees is yet to be extended by the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100140
CWP-9637-1999 (O&M) - 4-
respondents in terms of Balwinder Singh' s case (Supra), it cannot
be said that similar claim raised by the petitioners is time barred.
xx xx xx
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).
xx xx xx
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.
xx xx xx
42. Let consideration as directed herein above be completed within
the period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
43. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of in the
terms and conditions mentioned herein before. Let the respondent-
State pass appropriate speaking order as directed herein before. In
case, any of the petitioner is found entitled for
regularization/retrospective regularization of services from the date
employees junior to him/her has been regularized, they will be
granted the said date of regularization otherwise due reasons be
mentioned in the speaking order keeping in mind the directions given
by the Court herein before so as to decide the eligibility of each
petitioners qua their respective claims. Further in case any of the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100140
CWP-9637-1999 (O&M) - 5-
petitioners is found entitled for regularization of his services
retrospectively the said benefit shall be given notionally, no arrears
will be granted to the petitioners up to the date of filing of the
respective petitions. The petitioners will be entitled for fixing of their
salaries from the date of regularization notionally and the arrears will
only be extended from the date of filing of their respective petitions
before this Court and if any of the petitioners has already retired,
his/her pensionary benefits will also be fixed/revised and arrears will
also be extended from the date of filing the petition by the said
petitioner."
3. Learned State counsel on instructions submits no objection to the
prayer made.
4. In wake of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment passed in Ashish Sharma and Others(supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.08.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
