RAMBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of the orders dated 29.7.2010 (Annexure P-7) and subsequent order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the services in view of the policies issued by the Govt. of Haryana has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 5.3.1990 on daily wages basis in the respondent-Department. He was assigned the duty of driver on Road Roller No. 343. His services were terminated in the year 1996. The said order of termination was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing CWP No. 11121 of 1996 and vide order dated 30.7.1996 the department was directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service. Thereafter the order of termination was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.11.1997 and the department was directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. The Government of Haryana vide notification dated 7.3.1996 (Annexure P-1) took a policy decision to regularise the services of the daily rated employees who have completed five years of service on 31.1.1996. This policy was again modified vide policy dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure P-2) to the effect that daily rated employees who have completed three years of service instead of five years shall be eligible for regularization. The services of the petitioner were again terminated on 1.8.1998. He challenged the said order by way of filing CWP No.14237 of 1998 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.1998 (Annexure P-3) with a direction that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The Engineer in Chief, Haryana, PWD, B&R Br. Chandigarh issued a letter dated 22.2.1999 (Annexure P-4) for regularisation of services of the daily rated employees who have completed three years of service on 31.1.1996 in view of the policy decision. The Government of Haryana General Administration department vide notification dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure P-5) again took a policy decision to regularise the services of daily wage employees who have completed three years service on 30.9.2003. Despite the specific instructions by the Government of Haryana, the Department did not consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services in the light of instructions dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner again filed CWP No. 3350 of 2010 seeking direction for regularisation of service w.e.f 31.3.1993 which was disposed of vide order of this Court dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P-6) with a direction to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order. In compliance of the order dated 24.2.2010 (Annexure P-6), legal notice of the petitioner was considered and his claim for regularisation was rejected by the order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-7). The order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-7) was again assailed by the petitioner by filing CWP No.7822 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P- 8) with liberty to file a representation seeking regularisation in terms of law laid down by the Honourable the Supreme Court of India. As per the policy decision dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-9), the State Government decided to regularise the services of the employees who have completed ten years of service on 10.4.2006. After passing of the order dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner again filed a representation within two weeks seeking his regularisation in terms of law laid down by Honourable the Supreme Court of India. When the said representation remained undecided, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P-10) upon the respondents for redressal of his grievance. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-12) on the ground that he was reinstated under the order of the Court and as such he was not entitled for regularization. In paragraph 17 of the petition, names of the juniors of the petitioners have been given who had been earlier regularised as per the policy of 1996.

(3.) Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. In reply to paragraph 17 of the writ petition, it has been submitted that the petitioners cannot equate his case with his so called juniors. Since they fulfil the requisite conditions of the Government policies, therefore, they have been given the benefit of regularisation taking into account all the relevant facts but the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of policy decision, therefore, case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. After his reinstatement on 25.11.1998 his case does not fulfil the conditions as per the policy dated 29.7.2011 (Annexure P-9) and he is not entitled for regularization.