RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Ranjit Singh was inducted into the service of the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, as a Beldar on daily wage basis in 1980. In 1986, his services were discontinued. His place was occupied by fresh appointee. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, as a consequence of which the issue of the petitioners disengagement from service was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, Ambala, the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, and the petitioner entered into a compromise as a consequence of which the petitioner was reinstated with continuity in service. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after his reinstatement, the petitioner has continued 10 render service uninterruptedly till date but has not been regularised. The prayer of the petitioner is for regularisation in service.

(2.) TO claim regularisation, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court instructions dated 7.3.1996 in respect of daily wagers proving for the regularisation of daily wagers who had completed 5 years service on 31.1.1996. Attention of this Court has also been invited to another instruction dated 19.3.1996 vide which the instructions dated 7.3.1996 were modified. The latter instruction contemplated the regularisation of daily rated employees on the completion of 3 years service on 31.1.1996. It is submitted that under the aforesaid instruction, Municipal Committee, Ambala City, had regularised the services of various daily wage employees. In this behalf, it is pointed out that some of those employees were regularised vide order dated 1.1.1996, despite the fact that they did not fulfil the prescribed educational qualifications and the age stipulations. In order to regularise the services of the six employees (regularised vide order dated 1.1.1996) the competent authority had not only relaxed the rules but had also created new posts to accommodate them. Additionally, it is pointed out that Ranbir Singh one of the six employees regularised vide order dated 1.1.1996 was inducted into service of the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, after the petitioner and as such was junior to him. Based on the instructions referred to above and also regularisation of Ranbir Singh. the petitioner asserts his claim for regularisation. While opposing the claim of the petitioner for regularisation, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the averments made in paragraph 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Para 2 is extracted hereunder : -

(3.) INSOFAR as the non -fulfilment of the qualifications and other conditions incorporated in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation : AIR 1990 S.C. 371. He has also invited the attention of this Court to the following observations made therein : -