Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirna Devi vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004868
2024:PHHC:004868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CWP-16884-2013
Date of Decision : 15.01.2024
Kirna Devi (now deceased) through her LRs. .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with
Mr. Sarthak Soni, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
impugning the order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure P-14) whereby her
claim for regularization has been rejected on the ground that her initial
engagement was not through the Employment Exchange, further a writ
of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to regularize
the service of the petitioner in view of the instructions/policy dated
04.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) and in view of the judgment passed by this
Court in CWP No.17499 of 2011 tilted as 'Satya Devi and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others' decided on 24.01.2012 (Annexure P-11)
with all consequential benefits.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as part
time Sweeper in the year 1997 and she worked till 27.09.2013 when
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004868
2024:PHHC:004868
unfortunately she died while in service. The petitioner had earlier filed
CWP No.24132 of 2012 claiming regularization in service, however, the
said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated
06.12.2012 with a direction to the respondents to take final decision on
the legal notice dated 30.07.2012 served by the petitioner by passing a
speaking order within a period of four months. Thereafter, the claim of
the petitioner has been considered by the respondent/Board, however,
the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 21.03.2013 by
stating as under :-
"3. In reply to this letter, it is stated that the case of
regularizing the services of the employee was to consider
in view of the instructions issued by the Govt. of Punjab,
Personnel Department No.11/15-98-4 P.P.3/2803 dated
4.3.1999. Copy of this letter is annexed. As per clause 2(A)
(iv) of the letter dated 4.3.1999 of the Punjab Govt. the
appointment of the employee should have been made
through Employment Exchange but as per the records of
the office, the appointment has not been done through
Employment Officer. Therefore, her case of regularization
can not be considered.
4. The reply of this para is as above.
5. As so stated in para No. 3 that as the appointment of
the petitioner had not been made through Employment
Exchange and neither through Open Advertisement,
therefore, her case of regularization in services can not be
considered."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order passed by the respondent/Board rejecting the claim of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004868
2024:PHHC:004868
the petitioner for regularization of her services on the ground that her
initial engagement was not through the Employment Exchange is
against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP
No.16655 of 2003 titled as 'Paramjit Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab and others' and other connected cases decided on 15.03.2004
whereby the said clause on the basis of which the claim of the petitioner
has been rejected, already stands quashed. The concluding para of the
said judgment reads as under :-
"For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions
are allowed. Paragraph 2 (A) (iv) of Annexure P-8 is
quashed. Letter Annexure R-1 annexed with written
statement filed in C.W.P. No.16084 of 2003 is also declared
illegal and quashed. The respondents are directed to
consider/re-consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of their services without taking into
consideration paragraph 2 (A) (iv) of letter Annexure P-8
and pass appropriate orders within 3 months from the
submission of certified copies of this order. If the
competent authority comes to the conclusion that the
petitioners or some of them are not entitled to be
regularized in service, then the order passed in such cases
should be communicated to the concerned petitioner(s)."
4. He further submits that the Special Leave Petition filed
against the abovesaid judgment has been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.2005 (Annexure P-10) and
thereafter, the claim of similarly situated employees, who were working
as part-time Sweepers in the Government Schools of Education
Department, Punjab have also been accepted by this Court vide
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004868
2024:PHHC:004868
judgment dated 24.01.2012 passed in CWP No.17499 of 2011 titled as
'Satya Devi Vs. State of Punjab and others' (Annexure P-11). He
further submits that in view of the above, the case of the petitioner is
liable to be reconsidered.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the
abovesaid legal position and could not justify the impugned order.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the relevant documents.
7. Since the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the
basis of clause, which has already been quashed by this Court vide
judgment dated 15.03.2004 passed in CWP No.16655 of 2023
(Annexure P-9) which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 08.04.2005 (Annexure P-10), therefore, the
present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed, the
impugned order dated 21.03.2013 (Annexure P-14) is hereby set aside
and the respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner
for regularization of her services sympathetically and release all the
consequential benefits arising therefrom to the legal heirs of the
petitioner, within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
15.01.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
Kothiyal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004868
4 of 4
