RAJ SINGH BELDAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.No.16440 of 2011 C.M.is allowed. Affidavit taken on record. CWP No.12677 of 1993 The writ petition seeks for a direction for regularization of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in terms of the policy of regularization issued by the Secretary to the Haryana Government to all the Heads of Departments. The policy declared that the casual and daily rated employees who had completed 5 years of service on 31.3.1993 and were in service on that day shall be regularized. There has been a subsequent communication to the Chief Officers of the Forest Department CWP No. 12677 of 1993 (O&M) 2 by the Secretary on 9.9.1993 advising them that regularization should be undertaken for those persons who have completed 5 years on 31.3.1993 in Class IV posts and if the posts were not available, the respective officers would inform the government so that appropriate sanction could be taken for the creation of posts. A request was forwarded on behalf of the petitioners and the impugned order came to be passed by the Divisional Forest Manager, Mohindergarh that the employment was seasonal and to keep such persons in employment without work was not in public interest.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in every other office in the same Division, regularization had been undertaken but only in the Forest Department at Mohindergarh Division, the regularization was not ordered on a specious ground that there was no work through out the year. This Court had given a direction to the respondents to give details of appointment and number of days that the persons were working for the various years. An affidavit has been filed by the Divisional Forest Officer on 1.12.2011 along with an application CM No.16440 of 2011 giving out the details of working of the petitioners. THE details of working of Vijay Kumar who is the second petitioner, are, that he was working from April, 1985 till date, if we are to consider only the period of five years prior to the day when the impugned order was passed, I notice that virtually in every month the petitioner's work in the whole period except sporadically for some months say, in May, 1985, January, 1988 and April, 1988 he has not worked. THE same applies also for the third petitioner Neki Ram, where records are produced from June, 1985. Here again, from 1986 onwards he has worked continuously for all months, except December, 1987, March, 1989, July, 1990. I find that the plea that the work was seasonal and that they were not working throughout the year is falsified by their own records. Non regularization of the petitioner is unjustified and it is in violation of their own policy.

(3.) THE writ petition is allowed on the above terms with costs assessed at `10,000/- against the respondents.