SATYA PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in both these writ petitions is to Annexure P8, the order dated 31. 5. 1996, vide which the services at the petitioners Satya Pal and Madan Lal respectively were terminated. Satya Pal was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 7. 4. 1986 while Madan Lal was appointed to the same post on 20. 1. 1986. Satya Pal was then appointed as Work Munshi on 10. 7. 1986 while Madan Lal on 20. 1. 1986 itself. Both these petitioners had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9646 of 1988 praying that the respondents should frame a policy to regularise the services of the petitioners and their services should be regularised and the respondents should be restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioners. This writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court and the Court passed the following order:"

(2.) THE respondents filed reply to the writ petitions. The main plea was that the petitioners have been paid retrenchment benefits in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such dispension of their services is in accordance with law. Further it was averred that the petitioners have got service pleas due to orders of the Court and they have no right to the post and no regular post is available. With regard to the plea of discrimination it was stated that the persons referred to were not employees of the same division and each division has a separate and individual identity. As such the plea of discrimination was without any valid premise.

(3.) BOTH the learned counsel appearing before this Court fairly conceded that this case was squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chander and Anr. v. State of Haryana, C. W. P. No. 4378 of 1994 decided on 15. 12. 1994. The Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances and upon the same basis and considering Annexure P/4 the instructions of the Government dated 27. 5. 1993, passed the following directions: