PHOOLA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 9.1.2007 (Annexure P -3), to the extent his services were regularised on the post of Labourer (Class -IV) instead of Driver. He has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularise his services as Tractor Driver instead of Labourer with effect from 1.10.2003 in terms of Government instructions dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure P -2), and grant all consequential benefits.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Tractor Driver on daily wages in the office of Forest Divisional Officer, Kaithal, Sarswati Range. He submitted that the services of the petitioner were not regularised in terms of policies dated 7.3.1996 and 1.10.2003, vide which the services of the daily wagers, who had completed three years service on 31.1.1996 and 30.9.2003, respectively were to be regularised. The services of the petitioner were required to be regularised as Tractor Driver but his services have been regularised with effect from 1.10.2003 on the post of Labourer vide order dated 9.1.2007 (Annexure P -3). It was further submitted that at the time of regularisation, the petitioner was given assurance that as and when the post of Tractor Driver falls vacant, he will be regularised/appointed on that post. Now the post of Tractor Driver has fallen vacant on account of retirement of Tractor Driver Lok Bahadur on 30.4.2013. The petitioner submitted representation dated 7.8.2013, but the respondents have not taken any action. The prayer is for quashing of order dated 9.1.2007 (Annexure P -3), to the extent his services were regularised on the post of Labourer (Class -IV) instead of Tractor Driver and also for issuance of direction to the respondents to regularise his services as Tractor Driver instead of Labourer with effect from 1.10.2003 in terms of Government instructions, and grant all consequential benefits. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) THE issue regarding delay in invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and another v. Jaswant Singh and another, : (2006) 11 SCC 464. It was a case in which certain employees raised the issue that they were not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years but should be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. They were still in service when the writ petitions were filed. The writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Placing reliance upon that judgment, some of the employees, who already stood retired, filed writ petitions claiming same benefit. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court in terms of its earlier judgment. The judgment of the High Court was impugned before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, wherein while referring to earlier judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rup Diamonds v. Union of India : (1989) 2 SCC 356; State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya : (1996) 6 SCC 267; Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana : (1997) 6 SCC 538 and Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy : (2004) 1 SCC 347, it was opined that the persons who approach the court at a belated stage placing reliance upon an order passed in some other case earlier, can be denied the discretionary relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted below: