SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court with a grievance that his services were entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 01.10.1988 instead of 31.03.1993 in view of the policy of the State of Haryana dated 06.04.1990 as also in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 4992 of 1996 and CWP No. 3280 of 1994 decided on 21.09.1994 (Annexure P-6). Prayer has thus been made for quashing of the order dated 17.12.1996 passed by the Director, Public Relations, Haryana (Annexure P-4), vide which his claim for regularization from 01.10.1988 has been declined on the ground that he has not continuously worked with the respondents for a period of 10 years, which was mandated under the policy decision of the Government of Haryana dated 06.04.1990. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable in the light of notional break, which has been pressed into service against the petitioner's claim. He, accordingly, prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 17.12.1996 (Annexure P-4) and for grant of benefit, as claimed by the petitioner through the present writ petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents, while referring to para-2 of the written statement, which has been filed by the respondents, contends that the petitioner does not fulfil the mandate of instructions dated 06.04.1990 which would entitle him to regularize his services on completion of 10 years of service. His submission is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Leader of the Bhajan Party vide order dated 26.05.1978 and thereafter, his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.07.1987. He again applied for fresh appointment, which was granted to him vide order dated 06.08.1987 and he joined on 07.08.1987. He remained absent wilfully from 20.01.1988 to

(3.) A perusal of the above would show that the word 'continuous' is not mentioned therein and the same has been pressed into service by the respondents, which is against the spirit of the policy of the regularization. The Government was well aware of the fact that casual workers/daily rated employees would not be continuously working with the respondents as their work will depend primarily upon the availability thereof. Even the policy instructions have been issued by the respondents wherein notional breaks have been condoned. In the present case also, these are merely notional breaks, as have been pointed out by the counsel for the respondents and cannot be said to be of a nature which would disentitle the petitioner the claim of his regularization under the policy dated 06.04.1990 (Annexure P-2). The mandate of the policy being only continuous service and there being no break, which could not be condoned under the instructions issued by the State of Haryana, the denial of benefit to the petitioner for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.10.1988 cannot be sustained.