KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, which are not disputed, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on ad hoc basis in Punjab Roadways in the year 1982. The petitioner had colleagues who were also inducted as conductors when the petitioner was appointed at the same time and place. He was in service when the department took a decision that the post held by the petitioner was rendered surplus. He was retrenched from service but was re-inducted after 3 days. After his reinstatement, the Transport Department of Government, Punjab passed an order granting the petitioner terminal leave for the aforesaid period of 3 days which stood regularized. This gave him continuity of service without break. Even if the order of terminal leave was not passed, the break would have been treated as notional for all intents and purposes being far too brief and occasioned for no fault of the workman as he did not withhold his labour.

(2.) It transpires that when the petitioner was retrenched from service, he approached this Court by way of CWP No.2768 of 1990, where he claimed reinstatement and regularization of service and terms of the then prevalent authority in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh, 1992 4 SCC 118 [declared not a good law in Umadevi, 2006 4 SCC 1].

(3.) The writ petition was disposed of and a direction was issued to the Punjab Roadways to decide the representation of the petitioner within 6 months and status quo with respect to his services was ordered to be maintained till the decision was taken. In the consideration exercised, the petitioner was successful and was reinstated to service by an order passed by the department. Later his services were confirmed. He was retrenched after being confirmed.