DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.2.2005 (P-6). A further prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits from due date. It is appropriate to mention here that the petitioner joined with the respondent department in the year 1988 on daily wage basis. On the basis of the regularisation policies formulated by the State of Haryana, the petitioner earlier filed C.W.P. No. 8238 of 1999 in this Court seeking regularisation of his services, which was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the authorities who were to decide the same within a period of three months from the day the representation was made after taking into account all the relevant instructions and to pass a fresh speaking order. The respondents did not regularise the services of the petitioner and passed an order dated 5.12.2002, rejecting the case of the petitioner (P-5). The petitioner again approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 9126 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.9.2004 and the order reads as under:

(2.) In compliance with the aforementioned order, the Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar Forest Division, Yamuna Nagar, passed a detailed speaking order dated 7.2.2005 (P-6) and rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no mandamus can now be issued for regularization of the services of the petitioner because of the view taken by Honble the Supreme Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. . Similar matter has come up before this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors. C.W.P. No. 7563 of 2005, decided on 25.4.2006) wherein similar arguments were raised and we have dismissed the same in view of law laid down in Uma Devis case (supra).