BALBIR SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MANIMAJRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Balbir Singh and Ganga Ram, even though in service since 1983 and 1985 respectively, have been denied regularisation in service on the sole ground that there was break of one or two months in their service. Denial of regularisation on the sole ground, referred to above, is what has driven the petitioners to rake up this issue by filing the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The established facts reveal that whereas, petitioner No. 1 came to be appointed on the post of Water-pump operator w.e.f. September 1, 1983, petitioner No. 2 was likewise appointed in August, 1985. Vide policy decision framed on May 27, 1993, the Government of Haryana decided to regularise the services of daily wagers who had completed five years' service as on March 31, 1993. This policy was to apply to Class IV employees. With regard to the employees appointed on Class III posts, the Government framed a similar policy on May 11, 1994. Whereas, petitioner No. 1 had worked to about a decade even though on daily wages by the time policy aforesaid came to be framed, petitioner No. 2 as well had worked for good about 8 years. On the strength of the policy decision, referred to above, petitioners applied for regularisation by various representations and reminders clearly pleading therein that whereas petitioner No. 1 remained admitted in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, from May 24, 1992 to June 1, 1992, being sick due to pain in his back-bone, petitioner No. 1 had likewise remained under treatment from October 24, 1992 to November 30, 1992. When their entreaties for regularisation brought no tangible results and, in fact, their representations were rejected, on the sole ground, as has been mentioned above, they came to this court asking for the relief asked, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. In the rejection order as also in the written statement only plea with a view to deny to the petitioners the relief asked for is that the petitioners had not worked continuously for the period stipulated in the policy decision.

(3.) After going through the pleadings of the parties and hearing learned counsel representing them, this Court is of the confirmed view that rightful claim of the petitioners has been denied on wholly unsustainable grounds. The continuous service contemplated in the policy decision necessarily means service without break and if there is actually a break, which occasioned on account of circumstances beyond the control of an employee, the same, in view of this Court, cannot come in the way of regularisation of an employee. The situation would have been different if either on account of certain reasons the employer had shown the exit door to the employee or the employee himself had abandoned the job. Break in service, in the present case, having occurred on account of reasons totally beyond the control of the petitioners, could not be taken as a ground to deny to them their rightful claim. A Division Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar v. HUDA, 1995 1 RSJ 230 (P&H)(DB), held that "if an interruption in service is due to sickness or authorised leave, or accident, or a legal strike or a lock out, such interruption cannot be treated as break in service so as to disentitle an employee the benefit of regularisation in service." An interruption in service on account of sickness for a short brief period out of number of years' service rendered by the petitioners, ought to have been ignored by the respondent-State. The petitioners deserve regularisation in view of the policy decision of the Government, reference whereof has been given above. That being so, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in accordance with the instructions, governing the field. Let necessary orders be passed within three months from today. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.