RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the fact that he has been working as a Waterman in the office of the Director, Hill Torrents, S.Y.L. Canal Project since September 6, 1985 on fixed wages, his claim for regularisation has not been considered and in the meantime the services of various persons junior to him have been regularised and they have even been promoted to the posts of Peons.

(2.) A written statement on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been filed by Mr. G.S. Dhingra. It has been admitted that the petitioner's record of service has been consistently good and that Ram Shankar, respondent No. 5, was appointed as a peon to meet the exigency of work. It has, however, been pointed out that he was reverted after some time. It has been further admitted that Mr. Bishamber Jha, who had been appointed as a helper along with the petitioner, was promoted as peon. With regard to the other instances given by the petitioner, it has been inter alia averred that they were appointed on transfer from the Electrical and Mechanical Design Directorate, which is under the control of Respondent No. 2. It may, however, be mentioned that no separate written statement has been filed by Respondent No. 2. With regard to the petitioner's prayer for regularisation, it has been averred that there is no regular post of Waterman and as such the petitioner's claim cannot be considered for regularisation.

(3.) A replication has been filed by the petitioner. Mr. Hardip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on completion of five years of service, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularisation in accordance with the instructions issued by the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner's claim is squarely covered by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 3 SCT 201(SC) . Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner's claim for regularisation and promotion shall be considered in accordance with law within three months. He further submits that in case it is found that any person junior to the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Peon, the petitioner's claim for promotion shall also be considered with effect from the date a person junior to him was promoted.