JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 9.5.2002, Annexure P-6 passed by the District Forest Officer, Karnal, by which the request of the petitioner for considering his case for regularization w.e.f. 31.3.1993, the date from which his juniors were promoted was rejected. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed with the Forest Department, Haryana on 1.11.1982, as Mali. The petitioner continued to work as Mali on daily basis till 7.6.1994. His services were terminated without giving any notice. The petitioner had challenged his termination order before the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide its ward dated 24.9.1996, set aside the order of termination and held that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. After the passing of the award the petitioner was reinstated as Mali by the respondents on 23.10.1997. However, his services were not regularized although the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents. As the petitioner was not regularized, therefore, he has filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 2816 of 2002, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for regularization within period of three months. The respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization vide Annexure P-6 dated 9.5.2002 on the ground that he had not completed 240 days, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized as per the instructions.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once it has been found by the Labour Court that the petitioner had put in 240 days of service in a calendar year and the order of his termination was set aside by the Labour Court, therefore, the respondents now cannot turn around and say that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been working as a Mali, right since the year 1982, and therefore, he is entitled to be regularized.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contends that as per Annexure R-1, the petitioner has not worked for 240 days, even after his reinstatement. It is, thus, contended that as per the instructions the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized.