ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18/07/2001 (annexure P-6), passed by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B & R) Branch, Jhajjar, whereby his claim for regularisation was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner has averred that he was appointed as motor mate on daily wages on 4/11/1992, and continued without any break up to 31/05/1994. Thereafter, with effect from 1/06/1994, he was not allowed to continue in service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was compromised on 27/09/1994, before the conciliation officer and he was taken back in service on the previous post with the condition that he will not claim back-wages for the period from 1/06/1994, to 2/10/1994. The service of the petitioner was again terminated on 1/12/1994. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute again. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, vide its award dated 23/12/1998 (annexure P-1), reinstated him with continuity of service and 25 per cent, of the back-wages were awarded to him. The petitioner was taken back in service on 23/12/1999, and since then he is working in that post. A policy decision for daily wage workers was taken by the State of Haryana wherein it was stated that an employee who had completed three years service on 31/01/1996, was entitled for regularisation. The copies of the policy decisions to this effect are attached with the writ petition as annexures P-2 and P-3. The petitioner requested the respondents to consider his case for regularisation, but he did not receive any communication in this regard. Thereafter, a demand notice dated 5/03/2001 (annexure P-4), was served by him and request was made that if his case for regularisation was not considered within one month, the petitioner will have no alternative but to move the High Court. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5659 of 2001 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to consider the demand notice issued by him. The claim of the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 18/07/2001, of the Executive Engineer; Provincial Division, PWD (B & R) Branch, Jhajjar, a copy of which is at annexure P-6 and has been impugned in this writ petition. Notice of motion was issued. Written statement was filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid a lot of stress on the award dated 23/12/1998 (annexure P-1), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. In the award dated 23/12/1998, passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, it has been held that the petitioner had completed 240 days of his service and still his services were terminated without giving him notice or retrenchment compensation. The workman-petitioner was reinstated and 25 per cent of back-wages was awarded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to annexure P-2, which is a circular issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, to all the heads of the departments for regularisation of work charged/casual/daily rated employees. It has been clearly stated therein that the casual and daily rated employees who had completed five years service on 31/01/1996, and were in service on 31/01/1996, shall be regularised provided they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and the break in service in any year is not more than one month at a time.