Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Kulwant Singh And Ors. on 6 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2005)ILLJ329P&H
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners in the original list i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 17345 of 2000, who have put in service ranging from 10 years to 17 years as Pump Operators, Patrolmen, Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Beldar, Truck Cleaner and Ledger Keeper in the P.W.D. Public Health Department successfully sought a writ so as to regularise them in service.
2. There is no dispute on facts insofar as duration of the petitioners working on the post, as mentioned above, is concerned. Learned single Judge, while relying upon the ratio of two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruthi Kondhare AIR 1996 SC 2898 : 1996 (2) SCC 293 : and State of U.P. v. Putti Lal 1999-III-LLJ (Suppl)-556 (All-DB) and some other judicial precedents, held that the petitioners had put in more than 10 to 11 years and some of them have put in 7 to 8 years of service and that their services are required to be regularised. State of Punjab was, thus, directed to create posts for them and consider them for regularisation. The State was further directed to regularise the services of those, who had put in more than 6 years of service.
3. Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab representing the appellant State contends that the impugned judgment passed by learned single Judge runs counter to the policy that was framed by the Department, Annexure R/1 dated January 23, 2001, inasmuch as, under Clause-I of the Policy aforesaid, it is clearly mentioned that no new posts are ordinarily to be created to absorb and regularise existing work charged-daily wage and other categories of workers. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be accepted.
4. It is significant to mention that the very next sentence of Clause-I of Policy, Annexure R/1 reads thus:
"Wherever the full circumstances of the particular situation warrant that new posts may be created the case should be thoroughly examined. Finance Department should be consulted and approval of the C.M.M. should be obtained."
5. The petitioners, as mentioned above, have already worked for a period ranging from 10 to 17 years, as per their case, which is almost if not full atleast 2/3rd of career span of an employee. If the posts were not existing or work as such, was not there, there was no question that the appellant State would have continued with the services of the petitioners for such a long time. The very fact that petitioners have continued in service for more than last one decade and at no point, department thought that the work load does not justify their continuance would itself be enough to show that the department does need services of the petitioners as per the work load.
6. In fact, in our view, the petitioners, who belong to a lower category, have been exploited by giving them service at D.C. rates, which is far less than the regular employees working in the very same department and the very same posts. This exploitation cannot be allowed to continue any more. The petitioners, in the matter of their services have already suffered immense loss.
7. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
8. Inasmuch, we have decided the main case as such, no necessity would arise to deal with the application for vacation of stay. The same is accordingly dismissed.