Jitender Kumar v. State of Hy

IN

Jitender Kumar

State of Haryana CORAM: HO

Present:- Mr

Mr AMAN CHAUD

1.

Pra order dated 04. regularization ha

2.

Lea as Clerk havin continued as suc regularization d and his colleagu the same institu judgment of thi Ashish Sharma 2020, by takin aforesaid judgm

004 (O&M) - 1-N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA

Versus a and Others ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN

***** r. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for t r. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana. ***** DHARY. J. (ORAL) ayer made in the present petiti .02.2004 (Annexure P6) vide w as been denied. arned counsel would submit tha ng been appointed on daily w ch, the notional breaks not attrib despite his case is being covere ues i.e. Shripal, Revti and Ravin ute, have already since been regu is Court in a bunch of petition a and Others vs. State of Har ng into account submissions o ment, relevant paras whereof read

NJAB & HARYANA ARH CWP-2688-2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.09.202

....Petition

...Responde N CHAUDHARY

the petitioner.

on is for quashing the impugn which claim of the petitioner at the petitioner, who was worki wage basis since 26.07.2000 a buted to him, has not been grant ed by the Policy dated 01.10.20 nder, working on Class-IV posts ularized. Reliance is placed on t ns allowed on 13.03.2024 titled ryana and Others in CWP-215 f either side and relying on t d thus:

ner

nts

ned ing and s in as 58-

"

¶25or,

¶21ben em

¶26dec of def

¶27acc bee sen his/ num this atta sen non hav righ to b

28.

¶29in P law so jud get can

004 (O&M) - 2-xx

xx Hence, the objections being ra petitioners were not appointed there does not exist any regu vices of the petitioners, is con

12.2018 and cannot be accept nefit of regularization of their s mployees junior to them have been Even otherwise, once an empl cade and the work of the said pondents to create a post so a ntinue in service. Being a welfar its employees rather than takin feat the claim of the employees applicable regularization policy objections that there is no r gularize the services of the petitio Further, the said objection of th ground that there is no regula cepted on the ground that in cas en regularized in service under t nior employee will ipso facto be /her services from the date the gularized subject to fulfillment o plicable regularization policy. H se (Supra) it has already come mber of employees who were gularized in a pick and choose m gularize the services of senior em s Hon'ble Court while deciding ained finality, the respondents nior employees cannot be regula navailability of the sanctioned p ve been regularized the senior ht for regularization of his/her s be extended by creating a post fo The last objection which has b respondent-State is that after th se (Supra), no benefit of regulariz It may be noticed that once, th Prem Singh' s case (supra) af wsettled in Uma Devi' s case (S as to give directions to regulari ntinued to work for a period of dgment has been brought into o gularization to employees who tting their services regularized, t contention of the respondents nnot be given in view of the judg

xx aised by the respondents-State th against the regular sanctioned p ular post so as to regularize t ntrary to their own decision dat ted so as to deny the petition services from the date services n regularized. loyee has worked for more than post exists, it is the duty of t as to allow the said employee re State, the State has to take c ng all kinds of objections so as which is otherwise covered und y issued by the State itself. Hen regular sanctioned post so as oners cannot be accepted. he respondents-State with regard ar sanctioned post cannot also e any junior of the petitioners, h the same regularization policy, t ecome entitled for regularization e services of his/her junior sto of conditions as mentioned in t Hence, once, in Balwinder Sing e on record that services of lar junior to their colleagues, we manner and directions were given mployees on that ground itself the said case which judgment h now cannot take a plea that t arized in service on the ground post. Once, the services of jun employee will ipso facto get t ervices even if the said benefit h or the very purpose. been raised by the learned coun e judgment passed in Uma Devi zation can be claimed. he Hon'ble Supreme Court of In fter having noticed the position Supra) has carved out an excepti ze services of employees who h f more than 10 years and the s operation so as to give benefits have even superannuated witho therefore, in the light of the sam that the benefit of regularizati gment passed in Uma Devi' s ca

hat ost ners of n a to are to der nce, to d to be has n of ood gh' rge ere n to by has of nior has nsel i' s dia of had of out me,

(su is

¶31Pan Sta (Su em Pan pre pur situ ben dire of I gra wh Ho

¶33on situ Ben has to be

¶36bec pol be clai

37.

004 (O&M) - 3-upra) cannot be sustained and is a conceded fact that all th gularization of their services hav ir credit. xx

xx With regard to the judgme ndey's case (Supra), which ha ate herein above, the same canno se. In the Judgment passed in upra), there were no such c mployees have been regularized in ndey' s case (Supra), the claim fact that the employees did no appointment on the post in que esent case. Also as per conceded rpose of regularizing services uated to the petitioners, direction nch of this Court in Balwinder S ections have already been upheld India. Rather some of the simila anted the benefit of regularizatio vices of employees junior to th said SLP was dismissed by hich fact is clear from the orde n'ble Supreme Court of India. xx

xx With respect to the argum pondent-State pertaining to the account of delay, it may be not uated employees have already nch of this Court in Balwinder s already been upheld by the Div SLP has been dismissed on 09 the similarly situated employe pondents in terms of Balwinde said that similar claim raised by xx

xx With respect to the condition of 0 days of work in each year a come eligible to claim regulariza regularization policy dated 01.1 licy, the services of the employ pointment shall be considered for ndition. In case, the petitioners h 3 years upto the date of regular considered eligible under the po imed. Further, in case, any employee gularized in service, which fact

accordingly rejected, moreover he petitioners who are seeki ve more than 10 years of service

xx ent passed in Vibhuti Shank as been relied by the responde ot be made applicable in the pres Vibhuti Shankar Pandey's ca laim that the similarly situat n services, as, in Vibhuti Shank of regularization was made desp ot fulfill the qualification requir estion, which fact is missing in t d facts, in the present case for t of employees who are simila ns have been given by co-ordin Singh' s case (Supra), and the s d up to the Hon'ble Supreme Co arly situated employees have be on of their services from the d hem were regularized even befo Hon'ble Supreme Court of Ind r dated 09.01.2024 passed by t

xx ment of learned counsel for t claim of petitioners being barr ticed that the case of the simila been allowed by the Coordin r Singh (supra), which judgme vision Bench of this Court and ev

9.01.2024. Once, the actual bene ees is yet to be extended by t r Singh' s case (Supra), it cann the petitioners is time barred.

xx f having three years of service w as on the date an employee sh ation of his/her services in terms

10.2003 or any other regularizati yee from the date of his/her init r the purpose of qualifying the s has worked for 240 days in any rization policy, said petitioners w olicy in which the benefit has be e junior to the petitioners, has be t in case is established before t

r, it ing e to kar ent-ent ase kar pite red arly nate ourt een date fore dia red arly nate ent ven efit not with hall s of tial y of will een

said pol suc as h

¶40tha Ho Ha

¶42this

¶43term Sta em gra me by pet pet retr wil sala onl bef his/ also pet

3.

Lea controvert the s distinctive aspec

004 (O&M) - 4-pondent authorities by the petiti right of regularization of their vices of the employee junior to d petitioners fulfills all the re licy and respondent-State shall ch employee from the date his/he has been directed in the case of B xx

xx At this stage, learned counsel f at in some cases on the groun pointed prior to 1996, their ndition has already been set asi n'ble Court in CWP No.1582 of aryana and others', decided on xx

xx Let consideration as directed h period of four months from the s order. In view of the above, the wri ms and conditions mentioned h ate pass appropriate speaking o se, any of petition gularization/retrospective regular mployees junior to him/her has anted the said date of regulari ntioned in the speaking order ke the Court herein before so as titioners qua their respective cl titioners is found entitled for rospectively the said benefit sha ll be granted to the petitioners pective petitions. The petitioners aries from the date of regulariza ly be extended from the date of fore this Court and if any of th /her pensionary benefits will als o be extended from the date o titioner." arned State counsel despite his submissions made on behalf of cts in the aforementioned judgme

ioners, the said petitioners will r services from the date when t o them has been regularized if t equisite of relevant regularizati fix the date of regularization er junior was regularized in serv Balwinder Singh (Supra).

xx for the petitioners has raised a p nd that the petitioners have be claims has been rejected wh ide by a co-ordinate bench of t f 2018 titled as 'Gobind v. State

13.03.2019.

xx herein above be completed with date of receipt of certified copy it petitions are disposed of in t herein before. Let the responde order as directed herein before. ner is found entitled rization of services from the d s been regularized, they will ization otherwise due reasons eeping in mind the directions giv s to decide the eligibility of ea laims. Further in case any of t r regularization of his servic all be given notionally, no arre s up to the date of filing of t s will be entitled for fixing of th ation notionally and the arrears w f filing of their respective petitio he petitioners has already retir so be fixed/revised and arrears w of filing the petition by the s s best efforts, has been unable f the petitioner and draw out a ent or cite any contrary law.

get of vice lea een ich this e of hin y of ent-In date be be ven ach ces ars heir will ons ed, will to

4.

In w the judgment pa

5.

Pen

04.09.2024 ashok

Whether s

Whether r

004 (O&M) - 5-wake of the above, the present assed in Ashish Sharma (supra). nding application(s), if any, stand

(A

speaking/reasoned

: reportable

:

petition is disposed of in terms . ds disposed of. AMAN CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE