BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Per SURYA KANT, J. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the communication dated May 7, 2002 (Annexure P-2) whereby their claim for regularisation of services has been turned do Managing Director of respondent No. 2 The petitioners have further sought a direction to the respondent to regularise their services on the vacant posts of Cane Sub-Inspector/Kamdar and alternatively to pay to them the minimum of the pay scale given to the permanent/seasonal permanent Cane Sub-Inspector/Kamdar.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that petitioner No.1 was engaged as a Cane Sub-Inspector/ Kamdar on daily wages by the Haryana Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Rohtak-respondent No. 2 (in short the Mill) in January 1983; petitioner No.2 was engaged by the Mill to work as Cane Sub-Inspector/ Kamdar on daily wages in the year 1976 and he continued to work as such the year 1980; according to the Mill, petitioner No. 2 did not work for a year from 1980 to 1981 but was again engaged in November, 1981; since then, both the petitioners are continuously working. It is also not in dispute that a regularly appointed Cane Sub-InspectorAfifamcfor gets monthly emoluments of Rs. 5500/- (approximately) in the pay scale of 900-1250/- whereas the petitioners, while working on daily wage basis, are paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 2460/-per month.

(3.) The Mill is run by a Co-operative Society controlled by the State Government and/or its agency, namely, the Haryana State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Sugarfed which is an Apex Body of the Co-operative Sugar Mills. It is the case of the respondents themselves that vide memo No. SMF-2001/AR/12037-43 dated January 4, 2002, a copy of which was placed before us by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as well as the State Government have approved the revised staff strength, subject to certain conditions, of all the Co-operative Sugar Mills including the respondent-Mill. For ready reference, we may reproduce relevant contents of the aforementioned communication: