D.K. CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of ours will dispose of this writ petition as well as writ petition Nos. 223, 288, 761, 860, 965, 966, 975, 1382, 2757, 3024, 3345, 3474, 3606, 3610, 3660, 4079, 4693, 4865, 5463 and 5536 of 2001 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions were working in one or the other Haryana Government Public Sector Undertaking or Co-operative Sector Undertaking. They all have been retrenched from service on various grounds which we need not go into in these cases.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the State Government as a welfare State should consider such persons like the petitioners for absorption in the corresponding available vacancies in the Government Departments/other State Public Sector Undertakings/Co-operative Sector Undertakings. The argument has gone to the extent that even in the future vacancies which may arise, the petitioners should be considered first for appointments and, thereafter, the Government may resort to filling those vacancies by direct recruitment. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2483 of 1999 (Pawan Kumar Datta and others v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 28.9.1999, Haryana Tanneries Employees Union v. State of Haryana,1989 1 RSJ 619 and G. Govinda Rajulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Ltd. and another, 1987 AIR(SC) 1801. It has further been argued that some of the petitioners in some writ petitions are already working on deputation with some other State Public Sector Undertakings/Co-operative Sector Undertakings and they should not be retrenched from their parent Undertakings and rather should be absorbed in the Undertakings where they are on deputation.