TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, 57 in number, are all holding a variety of posts in the Public Works Department, Public Health Branch of the State Government. All of them came to be inducted into the service of the respondents in the eighties. Having rendered service as daily wagers for a number of years, the respondents considered their claim for regularisation unilaterally. All the petitioners were eventually regularised with effect from different dates in the year 2001. Two of the petitioners were, however, regularised in the year 2003.

(2.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim a mandate for regularisation on having completed three years of service after their induction into the employment of the respondents as daily wagers. This claim of the petitioners is based on the policy instructions issued by the State Government dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure P1). In so far as the aforesaid policy instructions are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) in paragraph 1 thereof. In our view, in order to understand the exact intent of the policy instructions, it will be necessary to cumulatively examine all the clauses of paragraph 1 of the policy instructions. Accordingly, clauses (i) to (iv) of the policy instructions are being extracted hereunder:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to clause (ii) extracted above, so as to contend that employees engaged on work charged basis and daily wage basis, who complete three years of service, are entitled to regularisation. He has also placed reliance on clause (iii) so as to contend that the inter se seniority of those eligible for regularisation is to be regulated on the basis of the date of completion of three years of service. In sum and substance, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on clause (iv) of the policy instructions, that all work charged and daily wage employees must be regularised on completing three years of service. It is asserted by learned counsel, that under the mandate of the aforesaid instructions it is not essential to obtain any permission in this behalf either from the Department of Personnel or from the Finance Department of the State Government.