SHIV RAJ AND OTHERS Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 2169 and 9667 of 2010, and 7363 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved. Prayer in the petitions is for a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in the light of the policy decision dated 1.10.2003.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the facts of CWP No. 7363 of 2012, submitted that the petitioners herein were appointed on 7.4.2000 (petitioner No. 1), 7.4.2000 (petitioner No. 2) and 9.7.1997 (petitioner No. 3), respectively. Their services were terminated on 15.7.2001, 1.2.2003 and 9.10.2002, respectively. They raised industrial dispute. The matters were referred to the Labour Court, whereby they were directed to be reinstated back in service vide awards dated 21.12.2005, 6.12.2006 and 1.2.2006, respectively. CWP Nos. 3858 of 2006, 5377 of 2007 and 8562 of 2007 filed by Kurukshetra University (for short, 'the University') challenging the aforesaid awards of the Labour Court were dismissed with slight modification that the petitioners had foregone their back wages after they were taken back in service. The prayer of the petitioners is that in view of the policy dated 1.10.2003, their services deserved to be regularised. Though the persons, who were appointed after the petitioners, were regularised in terms of the aforesaid policy, but the cases of the petitioners were not considered at that time as they were out of service. With the setting aside of the termination of the petitioners and their reinstatement with continuity of service, the petitioners shall be deemed to be in service and would satisfy the condition of three years' service, as envisaged in the policy dated 1.10.2003, hence, the stand of the University in not regularising the services of the petitioners is totally illegal. Even if the policy had been withdrawn later on, the cases of the petitioners are required to be considered in terms of the policy applicable at that time when other similarly situated persons were considered in terms thereof and were regularised. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon Dalip Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others,1999 1 RSJ 722, CWP No. 5848 of 2011-Karamvir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 11.1.2012 and LPA No. 1236 of 2012-State of Haryana and others v. Krishan Singh, decided on 28.8.2012.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the University submitted that regularisation of services of the petitioners can be considered only against some vacant posts. The petitioners were appointed as daily wage labourers. There is no post of labourer in the University. They were not appointed against a vacant post. They never worked as Peon. The writ petition is belated as they have filed the same almost six years after the decision of the writ petition, where the award of the Labour Court was under challenge. The judgments sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts of the case. The persons, who were regularised in terms of the policy dated 1.10.2003 were working against some vacant posts, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to be regularised.