SURESH MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to regularize him in service w.e.f. 16.09.1982 along with other consequential benefits as the said benefit has been granted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Prayer has also been made to quash the impugned letter dated 24.07.2007 (Annexure P -8), vide which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 1 because of a break of 19 days in his service. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Scientific Assistant in Agriculture Department and joined in Soil Testing Laboratory, Thanesar, Kurukshetra on 04.12.1979. Petitioner continued in service except for a break of 19 days in total in his service, which break was a notional break after every six months when his services were continued on six months basis as an adhoc employee. The claim of the petitioner is stated to be covered with regard to the condonation of break period by the instructions dated 02.06.1982 issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana vide letter No. 51/3/82 GS 1 (Annexure P -10), according to which, adhoc employees who have completed a minimum period of two years service with a break of not more than one month should be regularized. Counsel contends that the claim of the petitioner would be covered by the said instructions of the Government of Haryana and, therefore, the break of 19 days in his service be condoned and he be treated regular in service w.e.f. 16.09.1982, the date when his juniors have been regularized. His further submission is that respondent No. 5 -Rakesh Kumar, a similarly placed employee, had preferred a Civil Suit No. 291 of 1990 against the State of Haryana claiming regularization of his services, which was not being done because of a break of 13 days in service, which suit was decreed by the Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure P -2), which judgment has been accepted by the respondents and the consequential benefits granted to him. Petitioner, who has joined just four days after Rakesh Kumar, is also entitled to be granted the same benefit.

(2.) COUNSEL for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of regularization of his services because of various break periods during his service, which when put together comes to 19 days. The benefit as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted, He, therefore, contends that the impugned order, being in accordance with law, does not call for any interference.

(3.) THE claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition deserves to be accepted in the light of the benefit already conferred upon a similarly placed employee, namely, Rakesh Kumar -respondent No. 5 in pursuance to the decree dated 12.12.1990 (Annexure P -2) and also keeping in view the fact that the claim of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana vide letter No. 51/3/82/GS 1 dated 02.06.1982, according to which if an employee completes minimum period of two years in service, break of one month could be condoned for granting him regularization.