CHANNI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 133 of 2008, 17148 and 17094 of 2007, as similar questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, wherein petitioners are seeking regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 when similarly situated employees, who were junior to CWP No. 133 of 2008 and other connected cases the petitioners, have been regularized by the respondents vide order dated 06.07.2007. For convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 133 of 2008 titled as Channi vs. State of Haryana and others.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on daily wage basis. She continued as such with the respondents. Government of Haryana framed policies dated 07.03.1996, 18.03.1996 and 01.10.2003 and the on the basis of the Policy dated 01.10.2003, petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 6699 of 2005, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2005, wherein it was opined that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Kavita Gandhi vs. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (4) RSJ 760 and Tek Chand vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (1) SCT 308, in which it has been held that any three years of service would be relevant under the Policy dated 01.10.2003 for considering the case of the employee for the purposes of regularization of his services and it was not mentioned specifically that the three years preceding the cut off date would have to be taken into consideration for the said purpose. In the light of the said order, claim of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and order dated 28.02.2006 was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, wherein the petitioner was held to be entitled for regularization except that the order of regularization would be passed after the creation of Group 'D' posts by the competent authority regularizing her services w.e.f. 01.10.2003. Thereafter, another order dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurukshetra, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected. After the passing of the said order when the petitioner came to know that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Rani and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, dated 10.04.2006, large number of persons, who were junior to the petitioner and belonging to the same department as the petitioner, stood regularized vide order dated 06.07.2007 (Annexure P-5), petitioner has approached this Court claiming the same benefit of regularization on the ground that the petitioner has been discriminated against as the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL, on the basis of the above pleadings, submits that the petitioner is entitled to the claim of regularization of her services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 when similarly placed employees, who were junior to the petitioner, stood regularized vide order dated 06.07.2007 (Annexure P-5).