TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 to 3 were initially appointed as Pump Operators; petitioners 4 and 6 were appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar, while the 5th respondent was appointed as Fitter Mazdoor by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been held as work charged workmen on contract basis for more than 10 years since 1991-1995. As per the recommendations of the Board of Directors, they were entitled to be regularized. The petitioners would refer to several other resolutions which were passed by the Board of Directors admitting them to be considered for regularization. At the 119th meeting of the Board held on 21st July, 1997, the Board had directed that the categories of Class-III and Class-IV employees had been recommended by the Board of Directors by its resolution dated 23.11.1995 for regularization in terms of a judgment of this Court in a writ petition on 29.05.1997. They would also make reference particularly to a judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2006 in Tarlok Singh v. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board that referred to its earlier decision in Ram Niwaj and Anr. v. Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board in Civil Writ Petition No. 5721 of 1999, and held that the right of the 1st petitioner was to be considered in the light of the earlier decision of this Court in Ram Niwaj's case. The other petitioners would claim similar consideration. It appears that the 1st petitioner had made representation on 05.07.2006 in the light of the directions given by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2004 when by the impugned order dated 05.07.2006, the respondent rejected the 1st petitioner's claim by observing that Ram Niwaj's case was different from the petitioner's case in that the former dealt with the appointment against regular posts while the 1st petitioner and other persons were working against work charged posts on contract basis and there existed no vacant posts to which they could be regularized.

(2.) The petitioners referred to instructions from the Government to all departments issued on 23.01.2001 which directed that every department must prepare a list of work charged daily wager and other categories of workers, who had completed 3 years of service and out of the list prepared, the workers should be absorbed/regularized against regular posts existing in each department (emphasis supplied), when the benefit of regularization was given to some Junior Engineers. Similar resolutions had also been earlier passed on 23.11.1995 when the Board of Directors had recommended the regularization of service of employees appointed on contract basis.

(3.) The basis of the claim of the petitioners is therefore two fold: (i) by virtue of several other recommendations given by the Board of Directors, the persons, who had been working in work charged posts for several number of years would be required to be regularized; (ii) in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the benefit of regularization given to Ram Niwaj and Dev Singh should also be given to them and no discrimination could be practiced against the petitioners.