RAMAI (SMT.) Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of five writ petitions being 5695, 10366, 10367, 10368 and 10369 all of 1999 as the controversy raised is common in all these petitions. However, in order to appreciate the controversy, the facts have been taken from CWP 10368 of 1999.

(2.) The petitioners in these petitions seek issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the respondent authorities whereby their prayer for regularisation of service has been rejected. They have also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise their services w.e.f. 31.1.1996 as per the policy decision of the Government of Haryana contained in letter dated 7.3.1996, Annexure P-1 as adopted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) vide letter dated 10.3.1996, Annexure P-2, attached with all the petitions. They have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant the regular pay scale and other consequential benefits payable to them.

(3.) Ramai, the petitioner in CWP 10368 of 1999 was employed as a Labourer by the HUDA on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1.6.1999 and as per the averments contained in the writ petition she has been working as such till date. It is claimed that the work against which the petitioner has been appointed is of regular nature. The State of Haryana issued instructions dated 7.3.1996 for regularisation of work charged/casual/and daily rated employees. It was provided in the said instructions that all casual and daily rated employees who have completed five years of service on 31.1.1996 and were in service on that date, were entitled for regularisation provided they had worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and the break in service in any year is not more than one month at a time. These instructions were later on modified by instructions dated 10.3.1996 whereby the period of five years was reduced to three years.