SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Bal Savika on 3.7.1982. Initially she was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 100/- per month with usual allowances, till the regular appointment was made. The petitioner continued to work on the said post without any break and regularly till date. According to the petitioner she was discharging the same duty as regular appointees. The petitioner was being paid the regular pay scale. In order to claim the benefits available to her in law, after serving a notice upon the respondents. She filed the writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 16649 of 2000, which was disposed of by' Division Bench, directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner within six months from the receipt of copy of the order. In compliance to the orders of this Court, the respondents passed an order dated May 09, 2001, vide which the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of her services was rejected by the respondents on the ground that there was no regular post and that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Helper. According to the petitioner both these grounds are without any basis. There are posts available in the school and it was so certified by the Head Teacher of Government Primary School Rania, vide her remarks dated March 05, 2001. It is also averred by the petitioner that the qualification now sought to be enforced against the petitioner was not prescribed at the time when she was recruited or even at the time when her case ought to have been considered for regularisation. The educational qualification has been introduced vide notification dated September 11, 1998 while the petitioner ought to have been considered under the policy of 1982. For this purpose, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwati Parsad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation reported as, 1990 1 RSJ 255.

(2.) On issuance of notice to show cause and despite opportunity, the respondents did not file written statement. However, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, contended that order dated May 09, 2001 is justified. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner is actually working as Balsavika since 1982. It is also not disputed that she is performing the same duties and functioning as the regular employee holding such posts. Her service has been satisfactory and no complaint was received against her nor any memorandum was ever issued to her. The non-availability of post is no ground for declining regularisation of services of the petitioner. The petitioner is not a part-time employee. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Parsad and in the case of Dharmender Chamoli and others v. State of U.P., 1986 1 LLJ 134. The contentions raised on behalf of the State are not tenable. Even in the impugned order it is nowhere stated that the Petitioner is a part-time employee. In the Policy of the state to regularise the services of its employees who have worked for more than three years as on 1.1.1996, the State is obliged to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the petitioner is a part- time employee then the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered in terms of the policy Annexure P-4 attached to the petition as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the two above noted cases.

(3.) For the reasons afore sated, we quash the impugned order dated May 09, 2001 and further issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of its policy and the judgments afore- noticed. We left the parties to hear their own costs. Orders accordingly.