HARINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 was a Clerk and the petitioner No. 2 was a Peon-cum-Chowkidar under respondent No. 3. It appears that Homoeopathic Dispensaries run by respondent No. 3, under the control of respondent No. 2 were to be taken over by the Government. Accordingly, to begin with, nine such dispensaries we.e taken over. The persons working in those dispensaries were also taken over and thus they became the employees of the Government. The petitioners were, however, not absorbed as a consequence of the taking over of the dispensaries. They have, therefore, come to this Court for a direction that like other employees working in the dispensaries they should also be absorbed in the Government service. They based their cause of action upon the agreement, Annexure P-6 and relied strongly upon clause 6 thereof which is in these terms:

(2.) Counsel agreed that at this stage alone the matter may be heard on merits. They were accordingly heard at length.

(3.) It is the common ground that the petitioners were the employees of respondent No. 3. It is also dear from Annexure R5, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, that the two petitioners were employed respetively as the Clerk and Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the headquarters, i.e. not actually in the dispensaries. To our mind, however, that hardly matters. They were the employees of respondent No. 3 and employed only in connection with the working of the dispensaries by respondent No. 3. The tide of Annexure R5 shows that it is the statement regarding the staff position of the Homeopathic Dispensaries running in Mewat area. Annexure P.4 is appended to Annexure P. 4 which is dated March 25,1991. From paragraph 2 of Annexure P. 4, it is clear that the appendix shows the staff working in these dispensaries.. It can, therefore, be safety inferred that as on March 25,1991, the two petitioners were members of the staff working in those dispensaries which were taken over.