KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2010 (Annexure P -16) where by the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected and a further prayer has also been made for direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2003 and to pay all the consequential benefits arising thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been declined only on the ground that the petitioner was not present on duty on 30.09.2003 whereas she was on maternity leave. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner does not fulfill the mandatory condition of being present on duty on 30.09.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was on maternity leave w.e.f. 16.01.2000 to 24.02.2000 and said period has also been regularized vide order dated 15.05.2004 (Annexure P -12). A wrong fact has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner was not on maternity leave on that day and otherwise also as per terms and conditions of the policy of 2003, she is entitled for regularization. Learned counsel has also relied upon judgment in case CWP No. 18246 of 2012 titled as 'Umrao Singh and another v/s. State of Haryana and another', decided on 23.02.2015 wherein it has been held that in case an employee has completed three years continuous service as on 30.09.2003 and even if she was not in service on 01.10.2003, is entitled for regularization. Learned counsel also submits that as per notification dated 18.06.2014, a clarification has been made by way of amendment and the said petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the petition.

(2.) Learned State counsel has fairly admitted that in case, the petitioner was present on 30.09.2003 and fulfills the other terms and conditions of the policy then she will be considered for regularization by the department.

(3.) Heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the impugned orders as well as documents available on record.