Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These petitions have been filed, inter alia,, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing condition (i) of the Policy dated 07.03.1996, Annexure P-7, 7, whereby only such adhoc employees employees are required to be considered for regularisation who have completed two years' service on 31.01.1996, and were in service on that date. And break in service rendered on adhoc basis only up to a period of one month can be condoned, excluding the breaks occurring because of the concerned employee having left service of his own 1 of 4 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840 CWP-18133-1999(O&M) 1999(O&M) with CWP-2160-2000(O&M) 2000(O&M) -2- volition. Both the petitions are based on similar facts; however, to decide the case, facts are being taken from CWP-18133-1999.

3. Per contra, contra learned Statee counsel contends that the respondents have decided upon a cut-off cut off date as 31.01.1996, for regularisation of adhoc employees by taking a conscious decision to that effect. Only one month break in service can be condoned to consider an adhoc employee for regularization, egularization, provided it has not been caused of his own volition; whereas in the petitioner's case there is break in services for about four years, which could not have been condoned in terms of conditions laid down in the Policy. She further contends, it it has specifically been stated in the written statement that the petitioner's previous previous adhoc service was wrongly counted towards 2 of 4 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840 CWP-18133-1999(O&M) 1999(O&M) with CWP-2160-2000(O&M) 2000(O&M) -3- service benefits by the concerned officers in the absence of any rules or instructions to that effect. And their pay will be re refixed fixed after withdrawing the benefit of previous service wrongly counted.

5.1 Further, a perusal of Policy, dated 07.03.1996, shows that the Department has notified 31.01.1996 as the cut cut-off off date to consider adhoc employees for regularisation on fulfilment of the laid down conditions, which include minimum two years' service by that date. Apparently, there is nothing illegal or arbitrary about the cut-off cut off date, nor any illegality ccould ould be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, whenever a cut cut-off off date is fixed, there will always be employees who would not be able to meet that condition; this is an inherent contradiction which cannot be done away with. Therefore, refore, merely on this account a cut cut-off off date cannot be termed unreasonable. The employees not covered under the policy due to the cut cut-off off 3 of 4 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840 CWP-18133-1999(O&M) 1999(O&M) with CWP-2160-2000(O&M) 2000(O&M) -4- date could be considered in terms of any subsequent policy to be notified by the Government. Besides, the condition regarding regarding condoning the breaks in service up to a period of one month can also not be termed arbitrary or illegal, as it is a beneficial provision to consider adhoc employees for regularisation irrespective of the breaks. The Department has taken a consciou consciouss decision to condone such breaks up to a period of one month, no exception can be taken to it, as there is nothing irrational about it; nor is there any justification to extend the break period to over three/four years to bring the petitioners within the zone of consideration for regularisation.