(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the rival pleadings. It has been given out by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of twenty-one petitioners, the respondents have already regularised the services of petitioners 1 to 3, 7, 8, 13 and 14. In view of this statement, the writ petition qua these petitioners is declared as having become infructuous.
(2.) In regard to other petitioners, the statement Annexure R-1 produced by the respondents does indicate that the petitioners have by now rendered 7 to 14 years of service with the respondent-department. Though the department has claimed that the petitioners have not completed 240 days of service in a span of five years when calculated backward with effect from 31.3.1993, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that at times, the petitioners were not given jobs and other times, entitles in the muster rolls had been made in the names of other persons although the work was performed by the petitioners. Learned counsel has also argued that some of the petitioners could not attend duties for a particular period on account of unavoidable circumstances like illness etc. and, therefore, that period ought not be treated as a break in service for the purpose of implementation of the policy decision of the government as circulated vide notification dated 6.5.1993.
(3.) Taking into consideration all the facts, we are of the view that ends of justice would be adequately met by directing the Executive Engineer, Provisional Division No. II, PWD (B&R) Branch, Kurukshetra to permit each of the petitioners to verify the particulars of his work during various years when these petitioners have served the department. After verification of the period of work, the petitioners shall be free to submit a representation to the Executive Engineer concerned who shall objectively and sympathetically consider those representations for regularisation of then service in accordance with the policy decision of the government. We further direct that while considering the cases of the petitioners for regularisation, the concerned Executive Engineer shall keep in mind the observation made by this Court in C.W.P. No. 8715 of 1994 (Anand Kumar vs. Haryana Urban Dev. Authority) decided on 13.9.1994.