SANTRO DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the order dated 3.8.1998, dismissing the petitioner's prayer for regularisation. The petitioner had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16739 of 1997, seeking a direction for regularisation in service which came up for hearing on 4.5.1998 and this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim. Vide order dated 3.8.1998, Headmaster, Government High School, Kharak Bhura District Jind passed the impugned order stating that the services of the petitioner could not be regularised as there was "no provision to regularise the service of the part time employee and her case for regularisation will be considered as per policy/decision of the Government." Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a part time sweeper in the Government Middle School, (sic) on temporary basis through employment exchange after interview by the Selection Committee on 23.5.1994. She joined on 6.7.1994 and after completion of three years in service, her case was forwarded to the District Education Officer, Jind for regularisation in terms of the Policy of the Haryana Government dated 19.12.1980, Annexure P-2, which provided for regularisation of services after three years of part time service. It is stated that the respondents discontinued the payment of salary to the petitioner though the petitioner continued to work and the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16739 of 1997, wherein apart from directing the consideration of the petitioner's claim for regularisation, this Court recorded the statement of the counsel for the respondents that salary due to the petitioner from September, 1995 to April 30, 1998 had been paid on 1.5.1998 and that the case of regularisation of the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law. The full text of the order dated 4.5.1998 is reproduced below :

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out from the written statement filed by respondent No. 6 that the petitioner's services could not be regularised as there was no provision to regularise the part time employees as stated in letter dated 5.5.1995 issued by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana. This stand has been taken by the respondents in spite of the Policy of the Haryana State issued vide order dated 19.12.1980, annexure P-2 to the writ petition and letter dated 30.12.1998 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Annexure R-6. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the services of the petitioner stood terminated on 6.9.1997 before her completing three years of service. This contention is untenable as the petitioner had already completed three years of service on 6.9.1997 and as per the statement of the counsel for the respondents recorded by this Court on 4.5.1998, quoted herein above, the petitioner was in service upto April 30, 1998. The question is what order has to be passed. Instead of straightaway passing any final order on merits, we think if fit to direct the director of Education Department, Haryana, to personally consider the matter and pass an appropriate order having regard to the fact that the petitioner has completed more than three years of the service and her case has not so far been examined in the light of the Policy of the Haryana Government even though an undertaking was given to this Court on May 4, 1998, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Education Department as well as other respondents. The Director, Education Department, Haryana, would dispose of the matter within three months from today.