SATBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18564 and 18916 of 2005. The facts are being referred from Civil Writ Petition No. 18564 of 2005.

(2.) The petitioners, at one stage, were appointed by the respondents on daily wages. Petitioner No. 1 Satbir Singh has worked from February 17, 1997 to February 23, 1997 for 7 days and petitioner No. 2 has worked for 75 days from December 20, 1996 to December 31, 1996 and January 4, 1997 to March 7, 1997. Petitioner No. 1 had worked as Clerk whereas petitioner No. 2 had worked as Sweeper. The petitioners were employed in the Municipal Committee- respondent No. 4 at a time when there was strike by the Municipal employees in the respondent State. There was a policy floated by the respondent State on May 13, 1997 stipulating that those daily wager employees who were recruited against vacancies during strike were to be adjusted according to their seniority against available posts (P-2). Another policy floated by the respondents was with regard to payment of wages to employees appointed on regular basis during strike period on July 3, 1997 (P-3). The petitioners have claimed by filing the instant petition on November 21, 2005 that the order dated August 25, 2005 passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside. It is appropriate to mention that earlier the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7609 of 2002, which came up for consideration before this Court on February 21, 2005. It was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant policy of the State. Accordingly, the order dated August 25, 2005 has been passed (P-12). The operative part of the order which gives numerous reasons for rejecting the claim made by the petitioners reads as under:

(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that no vested right is enjoyed by the petitioners merely by working for a short period of 7 days and 75 days respectively. Moreover, we find considerable force in the reasoning given in the impugned order dated August 25, 2005 (P-12) as it has been pointed out that the petitioners were never recruited by the Deputy Commissioner nor at his direction. They were merely kept on daily wages muster roll for few days and they had worked only for 7 and 75 days. Accordingly, it has been correctly held that their cases were not covered by the policy instructions issued by the Government on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners (P-2 and P-3). The pleas which have been raised in the impugned order have been reiterated in the written statements filed by respondent No. 4 as well as by respondent No. 3.