LAWS(P&H)-2002-12-1

ROOP LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On December 05, 2002
ROOP LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution India, the petitioners pray that the order dated 5. 9. 2000. Annexure P/5 to the petition, be quashed and respondents be directed to regularise the services of the petitioners on the respective posts they were holding for the last more than 10 years. The petitioners joined the service of the State on daily wages a labourers From the date of their appointment, they are working continuously. They claim to have worked to the satisfaction of all concerned. According to the petitioners they are being given wages as per Deputy Commissioner's rates. Government of Punjab on 18. 1. 1995 issued instructions that the ad hoc/temporary employees who have completed 240 days as on 31. 12. 1994 be regularised. These instructions were subsequently withdrawn and fresh instructions are issued on 20. 1. 1995 stating that the daily wagers who have completed 10 years of service on 31. 12. 1994 be regularised. Further the petitioners contended that then case is squarely covered under the policy for regularisation and despite the feet that they have made various representations, services of the petitioners were not regularised compelling them to file CWP No. 5431 of 2000 in this Court and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on the said representations. The claim of the petitioners, has been rejected finally by the respondents vide their order dated 5. 9,2000 which has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) UPON notice, the respondents have filed a detailed reply stating that the petitioners were never appointed through proper channel and against regular posts, but they were engaged for plantation and other ancillary purposes during the season. It is also stated that they are not covered under the Government instructions. The employment of the petitioners was of a temporary nature and they have no right to the posts. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is not dispute before us that the petitioners were not engaged as labourers and have put in considerable period of service even prior to 1995. The Governor of Punjab had issued a notification/policy on 20. 1. 1995 which admittedly was in force at the relevant time stating that the service of all work charge employees, casual and daily wagers in Punjab Government in various departments shall be regularised subject to the conditions stated in the policy. This policy has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P/2. Under condition No. 6 of the said policy, it has been stated as under:-