VIJAY K. DHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 21.10.1997 made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The appellants were appointed on temporary basis in the year 1973. Their services were regularised with effect from 1.4.1977 by order dated 30.11.1992. Thereafter, the appellants made a representation in December 1992 to the Chief Engineer claiming regularisation from the date of their initial appointment instead of 1.4.1977. The department vide order dated 26/27.10.1993 accepted the representation of the appellants and regularised their services from the date of their initial appointment. Subsequently, the order dated 26/27.10.1993 was withdrawn by the department vide order dated 4.9.1996, on the advice of the State Government and regularised the services of the appellants in terms of the order dated 30.11.1992. In the circumstances, the appellants were aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.1996 regularising their services with effect from 1.4.1977. Hence, they filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, after considering the respective contentions, concluded that the order passed by the authorities regularising their services with effect from 1.4.1977 was perfectly valid and stated that the earlier order regularising their services from the date of their initial appointment was a mistake and was contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government. Aggrieved by, and not satisfied with that order, the appellants are before us.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court has committed an error in considering the appellants' appointment on ad hoe basis and as a matter of fact, they were appointed on temporary basis with the consent of the State Government; they have been serving for a long time. In these circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the order dated 26/27.10.1993 regularising their services from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1973 was correct; although, it was stated that the regularisation was against the government instructions issued but no such instructions were placed before the High Court. The learned counsel cited a few decisions of this Court in support of his submissions.