Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Haryana And Another vs Kuldeep Singh And Others on 2 July, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.862 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : July 02, 2012
The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants
versus
Kuldeep Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.2286 of 2012.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 111 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
L.P.A.No.862 of 2012 (O&M).
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge deciding a bunch of writ petitions wherein the action of the appellant-department in postponing the date of regularization of services of the respondents has been annulled.
Shorn of the details, suffice it to mention that the respondents were appointed as Ticket Verifiers on daily wages or as casual employees through the employment exchange. Since their services were not being regularized despite serving for a sufficient long period, that they approached this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4743 of 1986 (Randhir Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others) which was disposed LPA No.862 of 2012 (O&M) [2] of by this Court vide order dated 17.02.1988 with certain directions including formation of a scheme sanctioning the posts of Ticket Verifiers and then to consider the respondents for regularization of their services provided that every incumbent had completed more than 240 days of service in a year.
There is indeed no dispute that the appellants decided to implement the above mentioned directions and sanctioned 158 posts of Ticket Verifiers w.e.f. 1.4.1987 vide memo dated 27.5.1988 (Annexure P-
4). It is also not in dispute that services of the respondents were thereafter regularized from different dates falling from the year 1987-1988.
It is also not in dispute that the State Government in the year 1993 issued a policy for regularization of services of adhoc/daily wages employees w.e.f. 1.4.1993 subject to fulfillment of eligibility condition laid down in the said policy decision. The appellant-department in purported compliance of the said decision, issued show cause notices to the respondents as to why the dates of regularization of their services be not postponed and why their services be not regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993 instead of 1.4.1987 or the subsequent dates assigned to them in the year 1988. The appellant-department thereafter passed the orders postponing the date of regularization of services of the respondents and granting them the status of regular employees w.e.f. 1.4.1993 instead of the actual dates of the years 1987-1988.
The aggrieved petitioners approached this Court and vide order dated 19.12.2011 the learned Single Judge has accepted their claim holding that the postponement of date of regularization of services of the respondents is arbitrary.
We have heard learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana at some length and gone through the record.
In our considered view, the order under appeal calls for no interference. We say so for the reason that in the light of the admitted facts noticed above, there can be no second opinion but to say that the daily LPA No.862 of 2012 (O&M) [3] wager Ticker Verifiers constitute a class apart and for their absorption on regular posts, the appellant-department took an independent conscious decision firstly to create regular posts of Ticker Verifiers and thereafter to post/absorb them on regular basis on such sanctioned posts. The aforesaid decision though taken pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in previous round of litigation, is altogether different and is not referable to the subsequent policy decision dated 1.4.1993 which was in fact issued to regularize the services of all categories of employees and not one group of employees i.e., Ticker Verifiers. It is not in dispute that services of the respondents were regularized subject to their fulfillment of the condition laid down by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 17.2.1988. It also stands established on record that the posts of Ticket Verifiers were created from 1.4.1987 and as such the decision to regularize services of respondents from the dates the posts became available, did not suffer from any apparent error. The circular dated 1.4.1993, as noticed above, was a general policy decision. Since the services of the respondents already stood regularized in the years 1987-88, the subsequent policy dated 1.4.1993 which was a general policy meant to regularize services of adhoc/contract/work-charge employees of different departments, could not be treated retrospectively in order to postpone the dates of regularization of services of the respondents. The said policy was meant to grant certain benefits to the employees and not to adversely affect their conditions of service.
For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 02, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE
LPA No.862 of 2012 (O&M) [4]