LEKH RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 06.12.1996 (Annexure P5) and 10.01.1997 (Annexure P6) whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularising his service had been rejected on the ground that he was not in service on 31.03.1993 and thus, failed to satisfy the necessary condition of 5 or more years of continuous service as on 31.03.1996 as laid down in Government circulars dated 27.05.1993 and 18.03.1994.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he passed Patwar examination and was issued a certificate on 20.03.1963 (Annexure P1) by the State Patwar School, Chhachrauli, District Ambala. On recommendations of the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Provincial Division Ballabgarh, he was appointed as workcharged Patwari from 17.01.1985 to 16.04.1985 in the scale of Rs. 400-600 for obtaining the copies of Shazra plan for preparing the land acquisition papers and various other works. He continued working upto 31.01.1989 against the sanctioned post and thereafter, he was shifted to the muster roll and continued working on the post in question till his relieving in the year 1996. He approached this Court by filing CWP No.2590 of 1989 in which a direction was issued on 11.12.1992 to consider his case for regularisation of his services. Thereafter, he filed another petition, viz., CWP No.12534 of 1996, praying for similar direction and orders were passed on 20.08.1996 and the respondents were directed to pass speaking orders within 3 months of the receipt of copy of the order. The respondents, in compliance of the orders passed, rejected his case on 06.12.1996 on the ground that there was break of service of more than 30 days at a time and he was not in service on 31.03.1993. A representation was filed by the petitioner that the said order was illegal and against the record and accordingly, the said order was rectified on 10.01.1997, after examining the record that the break in service was not more than 30 days, at a time but he was not on duty on 31.03.1993 which was a condition precedent. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed challenging the impugned orders that the reasoning given was against the policy since he continued in service upto November, 1996 and therefore, it could not be said that he was not in service on 31.03.1993 and he was entitled for regularisation.

(3.) State, in its written statement, took the plea that he was not having the requisite qualifications of Patwar passed certificate and that he was not in service on 31.03.1993. It was admitted that he was appointed on workcharged basis as Patwari and worked upto 31.01.1989, with various Executive Engineers. It was also admitted that then he was appointed as workcharged employee, he was engaged on temporary muster roll, as and when the necessity arose. The factum of the order dated 06.12.1996, which was re-examined on 10.01.1997, was admitted and it was submitted that petitioner was not entitled for regularisation under the policy of the Government dated 27.05.1993 and 18.03.1994 and the impugned orders were, accordingly, justified.