KRISHAN DASS MEHMI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A bunch of six writ petitions being C.W.P. Nos.4135, 4391, 4392, 4393, 4148 and 4164 of 2012, involving similar issues of fact and law were heard together and being disposed of through the present common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from C.W.P. No.4135 of 2012 titled as 'Krishan Dass Mehmi vs. State of Haryana and others'.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the relevant facts which have emerged are that on August 18, 1981, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer on adhoc basis. Such appointment was after inviting of applications through an advertisement and considering the claim of other eligible applicants. After the petitioner had put in over two years of satisfactory service, through order dated 25.08.1983 his services were terminated against which he filed a representation stating therein that persons junior to him had been retained and that the order of termination had been passed by an incompetent authority. Not disputing the facts mentioned by the petitioner in his representation and impliedly accepting the fault on their part, the respondents through order dated 01.01.1986 accepted the representation of the petitioner and while withdrawing the order of termination of the petitioner's services reappointed him. After rejoining the post, since the petitioner had been kept out of service from 26.8.1983 till 31.12.1985 without any fault on his part, he made a representation asking the respondents to condone the aforementioned period. Through order dated 28/30.11.1995, this representation of the petitioner was also accepted and the period from 26.08.1983 to 31.12.1985 was condoned while ordering that the same would be considered as leave of the kind due. Thus, now, the petitioner was in continuous service since 18.08.1981 and that being so, being covered under the regularization policy of the Government of Haryana, his services were ordered to be regularized w.e.f. 1.11.1986. Thereafter, on 30.10.1998, the petitioner was promoted as Sub-Divisional Engineer initially on adhoc basis and then on 01.01.2004 on regular basis.

(3.) On 8.06.2011, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why order dated 30.11.1995 from which the break period in his service from 26.08.1983 to 31.12.1985 had been condoned, be not withdrawn. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice but through the impugned order dated 14/27.02.2012 order dated 30.11.1995 through which the petitioner's break in service between 26.08.1983 to 31.12.1985 had been condoned, was withdrawn. It is this order which is under challenge through the present petition.