GOPAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts:- Petitioner was appointed as daily wager with effect from 1.4.1998 as Fitter Helper in the Department of Public Health of the State of Haryana. He has been working for the last 8-9 years without any break and to the satisfaction of his superiors. Vide letter dated 7.8.1996 Annexure P-1, State of Haryana issued policy of regularisation directing that all causal and daily rated employees who have completed five years of service on 31.1.1996 shall be regularised provided they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days each year and also there was no break of not more than one moth in any year at a time. State of Haryana modified the said policy Annexure P-l vide instructions issued on dated 18.3.1996 Annexure P-2 that all those work charge/casual/daily rated employees who have completed three years service on 31.1.1996 and fulfil other conditions as laid down in policy Annexure P-1, shall be regularised. Service of many daily rated/casual/work charged employees were regularised by the State of Haryana in the light of policies Annexure P-1 and P-2. Petitioner has been requesting his employer to regularise his service in the light of those policies Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 as on 31.1.1996 he had completed 3 years of service. He had put in 240 days of work in each year and there was no break in his service from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1996. For the period 1.4.1993 to 31.1.1996, his days of work was as follows:-

(2.) Through this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Gopal Sharma has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-10 whereby office order No.70865-99 dated 9.4.2002 regularising his services was withdrawn and his services were deregularised with effect from 1.2.1996. It is stated that his services were deregularised in disregard of the instructions dated 18.3.1994, 7.3.1996 and 18.3.1996 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a number of judgments.

(3.) Respondent-State of Haryana contested this petition. It was argued that the petitioner was not entitled to regularisation as he was not fulfilling the conditions laid down in policies Annexure P-l and P-2. He was not completing 3 years of service as on 31.1.1996 whereas under those policies, as on 31.1.1996, he should have out in 3 years of services. Services of only those daily wagers/work charged workers were regularised who fulfilled the eligibility conditions laid down in the policy.