Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 17811 P&H
Judgement Date : 24 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126321
CWP No. 24605 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(121) CWP No. 24605 of 2024
Date of Decision : 24.09.2024
Bharpur Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Inayat Khullar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
working with the respondents since the year 1985 but his services have not
been regularized though, there were various Policies, which were issued by
the State for regularizing the services of an employee, who had three years of
service to his/her credit.
2. Learned counsel submits that even as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999 titled as
State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, an employee having 10 years of service
was to be regularized in service keeping in view the Instructions dated
15.12.2006 issued by the State of Punjab and thereafter, once again on
18.03.2011 (annexure P-7) but the claim of the petitioners has not been
considered.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126321
3. Learned counsel further submits that the question of law raised
in the present petition has already been decided while passing order in CWP
No. 26714 of 2019 titled as Hira Devi and others Vs. State of Punjab and
others, decided on 19.07.2024 wherein, direction has been given to the
respondent-State to consider the claim of similarly situated employees for
regularization of their services and the present petition be also disposed of in
terms of Hira Devi and others (supra).
4. Notice of motion.
5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Charanpreet Singh, learned
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent-State.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to
dispute the fact that the question of law raised in the present petition is
covered by the judgment passed in Hira Devi and others (supra).
7. Keeping in view the above, the present petition is also disposed
of in terms of Hira Devi and others (supra).
8. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
September 24, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
2 of 2
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!