Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Pardeep Kumar And Others on 25 January, 2010
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Alok Singh
LPA No.91 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.91 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.01.2010
State of Haryana and others ............Appellants
Versus
Pardeep Kumar and others ..........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
-.-
Present: Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
ALOK SINGH, J.
1. By way of present LPA, appellants are challenging the order dated 18.5.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby learned Single Judge directed the appellants (respondents of writ petition) to consider the cases of regularization of services of the petitioners as on 1.5.1995.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the writ petitioners are working with the appellants as Conductors. Writ petitioner's names were sponsored by the employment exchange and they were interviewed and after trial, they were appointed as Conductors on contractual basis initially on a fixed salary of Rs.1400/- p.m. By a notification dated 28.7.1994 (Annexure R-1) it was notified that the services of the LPA No.91 of 2010 (O&M) -2- drivers/conductors who had completed two years service on the date of issuance of policy were regularized but writ petitioners were not regularized as they were not completed two years of service. Writ petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 8.1.1998 and the writ petitioners claimed that their services should have been regularized w.e.f. 1.5.1995.
3. Learned Single Judge placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Haryana State vs. Ram Chander, in RSA No.3213 of 2005 decided on 7.3.2006, passed the impugned order. This Court in Ram Chander case (supra) has observed as under:-
"A perusal of the aforesaid instructions clearly shows that as per the agreement between the department and the employees union, if had been decided to regularise the services of all such drivers/conductors who had completed two years of service against vacancies available under the prescribed norms.
In these circumstances, the interpretation suggested by the learned Counsel is without any justification and is not borne out from the perusal of the instructions. The other argument raised by the learned Counsel, placing reliance on Ex.D3 is also without any justification, inasmuch as, the said clarification was issued on June 23, 1997 could not have operated against the aforesaid vested rights of the plaintiffs."LPA No.91 of 2010 (O&M) -3-
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has stated that the department vide its letter dated 17.11.1995 (Annexure R-2) withdrawn its policy and thereafter, instructions were issued for regularization of services of the employees working on contract basis on 23.3.1998 (Annexure R-3). It was further averted that the benefit of regularization could not be granted during the intervening period as there were no instructions/rules for regularization of services on contractual employees between the period 16.6.1994 to 23.3.1998. It was further averted that writ petitioners had not completed two years of service on 28.7.1994 i.e. the date on which the policy was issued and thus their services could not be regularized.
6. In the present case, learned Single Judge has observed that withdrawal of the policy would not have the effect of obliterating the writ petitioner's right and the writ petitioners could have been regularized after completion of two years as the vacancies were available. Learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in second appeal (supra) which has not been set aside and allowed to attain finality.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any error or illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
LPA No.91 of 2010 (O&M) -4-
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 25.01.2010 JUDGE ashish