RAM DHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim for regularisation of service in accordance with the letter, a copy of which has been produced as .Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. A few facts on which there is no dispute may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Works Supervisor on the work-charged establishment on June 11, 1983. After about 6 years, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1509 of 1989 for the regularisation of his services. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondent will consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance witfi law. The respondents rejected the petitioner's representation vide order dated July 16, 1990. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure R-l with the written statement. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed CWP No. 10950 of 1990. While this petition was pending, the respondents served a notice dated October 9, 1992 on the petitioner. A copy of [his notice has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. By this notice, the petitioner was informed that in view of the decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case ol State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh,1992 3 RSJ 235, it is not possible to absorb him as a Works Supervisor. He was, therefore, asked if he was willing to be adjusted against the post of Water Pump Operator Grade II. The petitioner was also given an opportunity to submit a representation upto October 23, 1992. It appears that the petitioner did not accept the offer for absorption as a Water Pump Operator. The writ petition filed by him (CWP No. 10950 of 1990) was disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated November 30, 1992. So far as the petitioner is concerned, a direction was given to the respondents to consider his claim for regularisation in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case. The matter was decided vide order dated March 26,1993. The petitioner's services were terminated as he had refused to accept the post of Water Pump Operator Grade II.

(3.) Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the instructions issued by the Government vide letter, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner was wholly illegal. He further submits that the petitioner was willing to accept the offer of appointment as Water Pump Operator and that the respondents have wrongly concluded that he had not expressed his willingness in that behalf. He, accordingly, submits that the order of termination be set aside. Since the petitioner was working on purely work-charged basis, learned counsel states that he will not claim the arrears of salary. Mr. KhetarpaL learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instructions at Annexure P-l do not bear any date. These do not constitute a binding order.