SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of one Rajender Singh son of Sh. Ram Sarup who was employed with the respondents on daily wages as a Mali -cum -Beldar w.e.f. 01.08.1988. He continued as such till the time his services were abruptly terminated on 28.09.1998 whereupon he claimed a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act which was decided by way of the award of the Labour Court on 09.04.2004 granting re -instatement to the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages. This award became final as it was not challenged by the respondents. Having implemented the award, the petitioner was taken back into the services whereupon he claimed regularization in terms of the policy of the State Government of the year 2003 which envisaged grant of benefit of regularization upon an incumbent who completes three years of service on 30.09.2003. This benefit was denied to the petitioner by virtue of an order dated 07.05.2007 appended to the amended petition as Annexure P7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that benefit of regularization has been considered in the light of the policy of 1996 and thereafter while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others v/s. Uma Devi and Others : AIR 2006 SC 1806 : (2006) 4 SCC 1 : LNIND 2006 SC 261 : (2006) 2 MLJ 326 : 2006 -11 -LLJ -722 the respondents have held the husband of the petitioner dis -entitled to the benefit as his appointment was not in accordance with the accepted mode of public appointment envisioning public notice for all.

(2.) Upon perusal of the material and appraisal of the contentions raised before this Court, I am of the view that the stand of the respondents is unsustainable. The petitioner states that her husband was entitled to regularization in view of the fact that the award dated 09.04.2004 envisaged his re -instatement with continuity of service which if considered and granted would imply that the petitioner was in service on the cut off date of September 2003 in terms of the policy of 2003.

(3.) The petitioner has very fairly conceded that the claim of her husband under the 1996 policy was not maintainable but he was certainly entitled to regularization in terms of the later policy of 2003.