GURJINDER MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents in not considering and regularizing the services of the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider and regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the government instructions issued from time to time and also on the basis of his continuous length of service because various other employees have been considered and regularized as per the Government Instructions dtd. 18/3/2011 read with Instructions dtd. 21/11/2011, whereas the claim of the petitioner is not being considered for regularization.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was engaged for 89 days on work-charge basis on 18/10/1995 (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.4 - Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (in short 'Board'). Thereafter, the post of Work Supervisor was advertised by respondent No.4/Board in the year 1997 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner being fully eligible applied for the same. Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Work Supervisor. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Council Kharar for executing the work of sewerage and water supply. On 17/8/2012, a Resolution No.51 was passed by respondent No.3 recommending the case of the petitioner for regularization. On 11/10/2012 (Annexure P-2/A), the respondent No.3 sought transfer of the services of petitioner from respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 as respondent No.3 was not having any Supervisor to look after the work of sewerage and water supply under its jurisdiction. Further respondent No.3 has clearly indicated its intention to adjust the petitioner. Acting on the communication sent by respondent No.3, the petitioner was relieved by respondent No.4 on 31/10/2012 (Annexure P-3) and he give a fresh joining report to respondent No.3 along with all drawings of water and sewerage lines. On 1/11/2012, the petitioner joined as Work Supervisor with respondent No.3. On 26/12/2016, the respondent No.3 sought service record of the petitioner from respondent No.4 for regularization of his services. Vide order dtd. 15/12/2011 (Annexure P-7), the identically circumstanced employees who were appointed as Work Supervisor in the Sewerage Board like the petitioner were regularized on his transfer to Municipal Council, Morinda and similarly vide order dtd. 30/12/2016 (Annexure P-6), the juniors of the petitioner, who were working as Pump Operators with respondent No.4/Board were regularized. The State of Punjab has issued the regularization policies on various dates i.e. 23/1/2001 (Annexure P-8), 13/12/2006 (Annexure P-9), 18/3/2011 (Annexure P-10) and 21/11/2011 (Annexure P-11), however, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has not been accepted till date in spite of the fact that the petitioner being fully eligible and fulfills all the conditions specified in the respective policies. In February, 2008, the petitioner also submitted a representation for regularization, which remain unheeded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo's case (supra).

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization as the petitioner has failed to pinpoint the policy under which his claim for regularization has to be considered.