CHUHRU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the regularization order dtd. 8/2/2019 (Annexure P-10) to the extent that the services of the petitioner have been regularized w.e.f. 5/11/2014 instead of 13/6/2003.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined as Dak Runner on 12/10/1998 on daily wage basis and thereafter his services were terminated w.e.f. 28/2/2003. It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed proceedings before the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide Award dtd. 2/9/2013 ordered for the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and with 30% back wages from the date of demand notice till his joining and the respondent department was also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the Departmental Rules and Instructions. It is stated that the respondent department vide impugned order dtd. 8/2/2019 had regularized the petitioner w.e.f. 5/11/2014 without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity of service vide Award dtd. 2/9/2013. It is further stated that the persons who were juniors to the petitioner were regularized on 13/6/2003 and thus, the petitioner also deserves to be regularized w.e.f. 13/6/2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dtd. 7/12/2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department Punjab. It is submitted that at any rate, the impugned order dtd. 8/2/2019 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Executive Engineer, Mansa Division, I.B. Jawaharke, deserves to be set aside to the extent that the date of regularization of the petitioner has been given w.e.f. 5/11/2014 instead of 13/6/2003 and the matter deserves to be reconsidered after considering the above said facts.

(3.) Learned State counsel appearing for respondents no.1 to 4 has submitted that the competent authority of respondent no.1 would take a fresh decision after taking into consideration the points, which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which have been noticed hereinabove.