MAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Block Publicity Worker on a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.150/- vide order dated 18.2.1980. It was mentioned in the said order that the appointment is purely temporary and petitioner's services can be terminated at any time without notice. Petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 27.7.1987 with effect from 31.7.1987. He was, however, again appointed as a Block Publicity Worker at a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs.500/- vide order dated 25.3.1988. He worked upto 30.9.1988 when his services were again terminated. However, on the same very day he was again offered the post of Block Publicity Worker at a fixed remuneration of Rs.600/- p.m. vide order dated 30.9.1988.

(2.) While in the service of the respondents the petitioner had filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.7.1987 terminating his services and further claiming regularisation in service.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing today, Mr.Monga brought to my notice that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner had continued to serve and by an order dated 24.5.1995, the petitioner's services had been regularised as a Block Publicity Worker (Group D) with effect from 31.3.1993. Thus, the primary relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition has already been granted to him. Mr.K.G.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that as a result of the passing of order dated 27.7.1987, the petitioner was deprived of benefits of service rendered by him from February, 1980 to July, 1987 towards his terminal dues. He therefore prays that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to count the period from February, 1980 to July, 1987 towards qualifying service for pension. Mr.Chaudhary has further submitted that persons identically situated as the petitioner in this case who were also working as Block Publicity Workers and whose services were also terminated had filed Civil Writ Petition No.5305 of 1987, titled `Daya Kishan and others v. State of Haryana and another' seeking the quashing of those orders. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 1.9.1988 had allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders terminating the services of the petitioners in those cases and further directed reinstatement of the petitioners in those cases. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Haryana in said writ petition being L.P.A.No.996 of 1988 was also dismissed on 27.9.1988. All these people have since been regularised in service.