Joginder Singh and Anr v. State of Haryana and Others

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶1Prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in the light of policy decision dated 29.07.2011.

¶2The services of petitioner No.1, appointed as a Water Carrier on a part time basis on 30.10.1986, were not regularised on the ground that his name for appointment was not recommended by the Employment Exchange, rather his registration therewith was on the basis of his matriculation certificate, which had lapsed in March, 1987 and was not got renewed.

¶3Learned counsel states that case of petitioner No.1 is covered by the decision rendered in Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others vs. 1Darshan Singh and others , wherein the Division Bench while considering a similar plea, observed and held thus:

LPA-837-2018, decided on 19.07.2022 CWP-11416-2019

"Keeping in view the directions and the view laid down in Satyadev (supra), the writ petitions were eventually allowed by noticing that the writ petitioners were working since 1995-1997 and though they had not been employed through Employment Exchange. Resultantly, directions were issued to consider their case for regularization within a period of 3 months. As noticed, the judgment has been upheld till the Apex Court. We have also referred to the table reproduced above to show the discrimination as the writ petitioners were appointed between 1993-1995 and juniors have been granted the benefit of regulization vide communication dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure P-16). It is also a matter of record that in CWP-17998-1999, Prem Singh & others Vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & others, decided on 22.08.2002, the judgment in Satyadev (supra) was also considered and it was held that the Nigam was under an obligation to frame a policy on regularization which in essence should provide for the object to be achieved. Directions were accordingly issued to formulate and frame policy and also to consider the case for regularization of services of the writ petitioners who had been appointed as part-time Sweepers and Malis since 1987-1997 and had been working without any break. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that despite the fact that there were sanctioned posts available in both the categories of Malis and Sweepers, as noticed by the learned Single Judge in Gian Chand's case (supra) the denial on this technical issues that they were not employed against an advertisement or through an Employment Exchange, is unwarranted for. It is not disputed that all the writ petitioners continue to be in service even at this point of time and thus have almost spent 3 decades with the appellant-Nigam who still wishes to discriminate against them and not grant the benefit of regularization. It is to be noticed that in LPA-1570-2017 titled H.V.P.N.L. and others Vs. Surinder Pal, decided on

25.08.2017, costs of Rs.50,000/- were imposed. We do not feel why we should not take the same view regarding imposition of costs while dismissing the present appeal."

¶24In Raj Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana and others , the services of an employee, who had rendered long years of service, while working as a Water Carrier on part time basis, in the same Department as the petitioners herein, though, in a different District, were directed to be regularised and to which no challenge was made. The relevant paras of the same read thus:

CWP-5617-2021, decided on 15.05.2024

"8. It is conceded fact th water Carrier with the respo part time basis. If a per department for a period of he/she is working on par requirement of the work bei need of work is continued fr said that there does not exist of the petitioner. There has t in question keeping in view performed and the duration o

9.

As per the jud Court of India titled as ' Pre in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2 No.4371 of 2011), decided o held that some of the employ years with a particular institu regularized though they had hence, once the employee h same should have been r judgment in Secretary, Stat Uma Devi and others, AIR measure. In the case befor India, the Hon'ble Court dire of employees who had rend service but with the conditio be paid to them. Relevant par Singh's case (supra) is as und "35. There are some been regularized in sp for 30-40 or more superannuated. As th charged establishment their services ought to Government instructio this Court in Secretar Uma Devi 2006 (4) decision has laid dow rendered for more than Court's order, as one regularized of such em those employees who should have been regu regulate them for co others have been re services be treated as clear that they shall no of difference in wag service regularly b superannuation. They hat the petitioner is working as ondents from the last 29 years rson is working in a particu f 29 years, it cannot be said th rt time basis. Once, there is ing done by the petitioner and t from the last 29 years, it cannot t any post to regularize the servic to be a deemed creation of the p w the nature of the duties to of the employment. dgment of the Hon'ble Suprem em Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh pass 2019 (@Special Leave Peititon on 02.09.2019' wherein it has be yees, who had worked for 30 to tution, their services have not be crossed the age of superannuatio had rendered 10 years service, t regularized keeping in view t e of Karnataka and others vers R 2006 SC 1806 as a one tim re the Hon'ble Supreme Court ected regularization of the servic dered more than three decades on that no difference of salary w ragraph 35 of the judgment inPr der:- of the employees who have n pite of having rendered the servic years whereas they have be hey have worked in the wo t, not against any particular proje o have been regularized under t ons and even as per the decision ry, State of Karnataka & Ors. SCC 1. This Court in the s wn that in case services have be n ten years without the cover of t e time measure, the services mployees. In the facts of the ca have worked for ten years or mo ularized. It would not be proper onsideration of regularisation egularised, we direct that th a regular one. However, it is ma ot be entitled to claiming any du ges had they been continued before attaining age y shall be entitled to receive t s a on ular hat s a be ces ost be me sed

(c) een een on, sus me of ces of will em not ces een rk-ect, n of v. aid een be ase, ore r to as heir ade ues in

5.

The

28.10.2024 issu whereof reads th

pension as if they establishment and the from day establishment shall be purpose of pension."

¶10Keeping in view the presumption that the work of discharging the duties exists regular post.

¶11Even otherwise, the i the services of the petitioner the year 2011 (Annexure P-2 the part-time employees w required service.

¶12With regard to the arg the respondent that at the available on which the peti said that in the next 13 years discharging the duties from for regularizing the service which is vacant or by treatin is working from the last 29 created, the respondents sho the petitioner for regularizati

¶13It may be noticed th counsel for the respondents not been recommended by the Employment Exchange s appointment letter issued t question (Annexure P-1) tha the Employment Exchange.

¶14Keeping in view the fa the present petition is allowe to pass an appropriate order petitioner under the instruct P-2) within the period of certified copy of this order." e aforesaid judgment even stan ed by the Director General, AYU hus: "In compliance of order dat and Haryana High Court in decision taken by the Harya No.GSR.9/ Const/Art.309/ 2 regularization of employ adhoc/ contract/ work-charge have retired from the regu e services rendered by them rig ey entered work-charg e counted as qualifying service

above judgment, there has to be f the post on which the petitioner and the same has to be treated a instructions regarding reguarlizi r were issued by the respondents 2) so as to regularize the service who had completed the minimu gument of the learned counsel relevant time there was no p itioner was working, it cannot s, no post on which the petitioner the last 29 years, came into bei of the petitioner, hence, any p ng the post on which the petition 9 years as a deemed regular p ould have considered the claim ion of his services. hat the argument of the learn that the name of the petitioner h stands clarified keeping in view t to the petitioner for the post at his name was duly sponsored acts and circumstances of this ca ed and the respondents are direct for regularizing the services of t tions dated 29.07.2011 (Annexu eight weeks from the receipt

nds implemented vide letter dat USH, Haryana, the relevant extr ted 15.05.2024 of Hon'ble Punj n CWP No. 5617 of 2021 and t ana Government vide Notificati 2011 dated 29.07.2011 regardi yees/workers appointed/engag ed/daily-wages and part-time ba ular ght ged for e a r is as a ing s in e of um for ost be r is ing ost ner ost of ned has in by ase, ted ure of ted ract jab ion ing ed/

6.

Lea No.2, but pray respondents, wh

7.

Lea been able to con and draw out an contrary law an petitioner No.2.

8.

In petitioner No.1 submits a repr considered and d

13.11.2024 parveen kumar

Wh

Wh

of Group-C & D, you are he in the pay scale of Rs. 4440 allowances as sanctioned b time to time and posted at Panchkula on the following t settlement, therefore, not co to claim it as a matter of righ arned counsel does not press th ys for liberty to file a comp hich may be directed to be decide arned counsel for the responden ntrovert the factual position, inso ny distinctive aspects in the afor nd has no objection to the lim

wake of the above, the pres , in terms of Raj Pal Singh resentation within a period of decided expeditiously, in accord

(

hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / hether reportable : Yes / ereby regularized w.e.f. 29.07.20 0-7440+1300 Grade Pay plus usu by the Haryana Government fro Directorate of AYUSH Haryan terms and conditions as a one tim onferring the entitlement on oth ht." he petition on behalf of petition prehensive representation to t ed in a time bound manner. nts, despite his best efforts has n ofar as petitioner No.1 is concern rementioned judgments or cite a mited prayer made on behalf sent petition is disposed of q (supra). In case, petitioner No f four weeks, the same shall dance with law.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

/ No ual om na, me hers ner not ned any of qua o.2 be

CWP-11416-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11416-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 13.11.2024 Joginder Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG Haryana *****