TINA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No. 3, qua the petitioner's husband, whereby the services of the husband of the petitioner were declined to be regularized despite the fact that the juniors to him were regularized. It is contended that the husband of the petitioner joined the respondent No. 3-Forest Department as daily wager. He remained in service from 01.01.1988 to 09.04.1988. His services were illegally terminated on 09.04.1988. Aggrieved against the order of termination, the husband of the petitioner filed a reference before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The said reference was allowed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 04.01.2006 (Annexure P-1), by observing that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated on the previous post with continuity of service but without back wages. The said order has attained finality. It is further submitted that despite the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the services of husband of the petitioner were not regularized on the ground that he was not in service on 01.10.2003, when the policy of regularization was introduced. The learned counsel refers to Annexure P-7 and states that the services of similarly situated employees which were junior to the husband of the petitioner were regularized, in compliance of the order dated 28.05.2014, passed by this Court in LPA No. 582 of 2013.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the policy of regularization was withdrawn on 25.04.2007. The husband of the petitioner had to be physically present on the roll of the establishment when the services of the juniors were regularized.

(3.) I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.