JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been slogging with respondent No.3 Market Committee, Naushehra Pannuan, District Tarn Taran since 1986 as a Sweeper on daily wages. The service is continuous and without break. The Market Committee passed a resolution dated 4th December, 1996 (Annex P-2) resolving that the work and conduct of the petitioner is satisfactory and his ageold services deserve to be regularized. The said resolution was sent to respondent No.2 - Punjab Mandi Board for approval vide letter dated 4th December, 1996 (Annex P-3). However, no action has been taken by respondent No.2 Punjab Mandi Board so far without any legal justification. After long wait the Market Committee passed another resolution on 29th September, 2008 to the effect that one post is available against which the claim of the petitioner can be adjusted. However, the resolution and the request made to the Punjab Mandi Board have met stony silence. The prevailing position is that even after rendering about 30 years of service, the petitioner's services have not been regularized and many of his valuable intervening rights have been infracted as may have arisen from various regularization policies of the Punjab Government applicable to the Punjab Mandi Board passing by where under the services of daily-wage/ad hoc/temporary workers who had put behind them long years of service were considered favourably in cases of other employees similarly placed as the petitioner.

(2.) In the written statement, the Market Committee has put the blame on the Punjab Mandi Board and the Punjab Mandi Board has remained inactive and inert, the just cause of the petitioner long forgotten as worthy of consideration. In support of his case, Mr. Arora relies on a decision rendered in CWP No.2204 of 2010 titled 'Prem Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & others' decided on 14th October, 2010 (Annex P-13), wherein in similar circumstances involving a Chowkidar in the Punjab Mandi Board, this Court speaking through Brother Surya Kant, J. passed a tough order prefacing the judgment as a case "which is a classic example of exploitation of the petitioners at the hands of the State authorities". In Prem Singh's case, the petitioners had worked since 1982 and 1984 respectively. They were granted promotion as work-charged employees in 1990 and 1993 respectively, but yet were not regularized until this Court came to their rescue and passed the order. Mr. Arora further relies on a decision of this Court in CWP No.4117 of 2011 titled 'Sukhdev Singh & others Vs. The State of Punjab & another' decided on 8th March, 2011 to the same effect by the same Hon. Judge directing the State of Punjab to take an appropriate decision on the recommendations received from the Punjab Mandi Board in the case of the petitioners during the timeframe fixed by the Court. In implementation of both the orders, the Punjab Mandi Board has regularized the services of the petitioners in those cases. This case broadly stands on the same footing and deserves the same fate to prevent further continued violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has clearly demonstrated a case for intervention in writ jurisdiction when the facts are not in dispute.

(3.) As a result of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed.