(1.) THE petitioner was employed by the respondents in the year 1983 initially on part time basis. She was given a consolidated salary and continued to discharge her functions till the time she attained the age of 60 years. Despite their being numerous policy decisions of the Government, the services of the petitioner were never regularized on the premise that the respondents have drawn up a seniority list to cater to the dictates of the instructions warranting regularization. The case of the respondents even today is that the services of the petitioner could not be regularized on account of non -availability of the regular vacancy as also the fact that the petitioner was lower down in the seniority list which was being adhered to in the matter of regularization of services.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that the denial of the benefit of regularization has deprived the petitioner of regular benefits of service and after the age of superannuation she has nothing to fall back on inspite of the fact that she has served the respondents throughout her life for as many as more than three decades.
(3.) THE plea of the respondents is that posts were not available can only be taken with a pinch of salt. If an employee's services are utilized for more than 3 decades then such a plea of the respondents can hardly be accepted. Evidently its a case of utter exploitation of human resource by the State of Punjab and at best be termed to be a unfair practice. This Court has already taken a similar view in CWP No. 15342 of 2012 titled as Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab and others decided on 15.12.2014. In, 2015(2) S.C.T. 98 : CWP No. 1169 of 2011 titled as Balwinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab and others decided on 16.12.2014 this Court has observed as under: -