TEKCHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the State or its instrumentalities refuse to regularise the services of an employee on the ground that there is a break of more than a month despite the fact that the employee was not to blame or the fact that the absence was for reasons entirely beyond his control? This question has been answered in favour of the employee by different Benches of this Court. The correctness of the view has been doubted. Thus, these petitions were admitted for hearing before a Full Bench.

(2.) The issue arises in the context of the instructions issued by the State Government in March, 1996. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the following questions arise:

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department. It has been averred that the petitioners were engaged on temporary muster rolls on daily wages with effect from November 21, 1991, February 3, 1992, December 24, 1992, February 3, 1993 and March 28, (sic) respectively. They were engaged for doing temporary work. Only petitioner No.3 viz. Hem Raj was present on January 31, 1996. The year wise details of the days for which each of the petitioners had worked have been given in the documents at Annexures R. 1 to R.5 with the written statement, the services of the petitioners "were not terminated by the respondents...." They have "not turned up at (on) their own for doing the work". Since the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions laid down in the Government Circulars, their services were not regularised.