Punjab-Haryana High Court
Das Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 8 May, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [1]
214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-4361-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Das Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
2. CWP-4362-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Ramesh Kumar and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
3. CWP-14628-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Mahavir and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
4. CWP-11871-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Shiv Bahadur and others
...Petitioners
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 11-05-2024 08:15:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [2]
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate and
Mr. Akshit Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners
(In CWP-4361-2016 and CWP-11871-2023)
Mr. Karamveer Singh Banyana, Advocate for the petitioners
(In CWP-14628-2016)
Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners
(In CWP-4362-2016)
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of four writ petitions i.e.,
CWP-4361-2016, CWP-4362-2016, CWP-14628-2016 and CWP-11871-
2023 as common questions of law and facts arise in the present cases.
2. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all
the writ petitions have submitted that after filing of the present writ
petitions, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.03.2024,
passed in a bunch of writ petitions of which the lead case is CWP-2158-
2020 titled as Ashish Sharma and others Vs. State of Haryana and others,
had disposed of the writ petitions with the following observations:-
"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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [3]
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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [4]
21.12.2018.
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 viewthat 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 on13.03.2019.
41. Learned counsel for the respondent-State does not
dispute the said factum and submits that no claim will be
rejected by the respondentState on the ground that the
petitioners claiming benefit of regularization were not
appointed prior to the year 1996 as per the aforesaid
judgment.
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
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [5]
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 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.
44. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of
connected cases.
45. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also
stand disposed of. "
3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that the
cases of the petitioners also deserve to be reconsidered in view of the
abovesaid judgment and also in view of the settled law and for the said
purpose, the petitioners would individually give detailed representations to
show that their cases are covered by the various policies of the State of
Haryana and also the law laid down in various judgments. It is further
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [6]
submitted that the cases of the petitioners be reconsidered and in case, the
pleas raised by the petitioners are found to be meritorious, then, necessary
relief be granted to them, in accordance with law and in case, the pleas
raised by the petitioners are not meritorious, then, a speaking order be
passed in a time bound manner.
3. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that
the cases of the petitioners are not covered under the said judgment and are
neither covered in any of the policies but however, learned State Counsel
does not deny the fact that the abovesaid judgment has been passed during
the pendency of the present writ petitions.
4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and
also the fact that the abovesaid detailed judgment has been passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court during the pendency of the present writ
petitions, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer made by learned
counsel for the petitioners for reconsideration of the matter deserves to be
accepted and accordingly, the present bunch of writ petitions are disposed
of with the following directions:-
i) It would be open to the petitioners to move individual representations
to the competent authority of respondent No.1-State giving the details
of the policies under which as per their cases, they are covered and
also detailing all the relevant facts/policies or any other facts which
they wish to detail in the same.
ii) The competent authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the
said representations, in accordance with law, within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of the said representations and in
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064054
CWP-4361-2016 (O&M) and
other connected cases [7]
case, the pleas raised by the petitioners are found to be meritorious,
then, the competent authority would grant necessary relief, in
accordance with law and in case, the competent authority is of the
opinion that the pleas raised by the petitioners are not meritorious,
then, a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of the said representations.
iii) This Court has not opined on the merits of the cases and the
competent authority of respondent No.1-State would take a decision
on the said representations, independently, in accordance with law.
4. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
08.05.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
7 of 7
