MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the fact that these two petitions have been filed for issue of an identical writ, namely, writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana vide Annexure P-5 and for grant of other appropriate reliefs, the same are being decided by a common order.

(2.) Petitioner, Mohinder Singh, joined service w.e.f. 29.8.1978 under the Director, Animal Husbandry, Haryana, when he was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis. The order of his appointment (Annexure P-1) indicated the tenure of appointment of six months but the petitioner continued to serve till 2.4.1980. Thereafter, he was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis in the office of the Milk Commissioner, Haryana, where he served upto 21.10.1980. After a gap of one year and nine months, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 9.8.1982 in the Excise and Taxation Department and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e. 12.9.1983, the petitioner was working as ad hoc Clerk in Excise and Taxation Department. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of the fact that while issuing notice of motion on 3.6.1983, a Division Bench had passed an interim order and restrained the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioner. That stay order has continued till this day and, therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner has remained in continuous employment since 9.8.1982.

(3.) By placing reliance on the Government circular dated 3.1.1983 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner has pleaded that being an ad hoc Clerk, who was in service on 15.9.1982, he has acquired a right to be regularised in service against the vacant post of Clerk which was available in the Excise and Taxation Department and by not passing an appropriate order of regularisation of his service, the respondents have discriminated him. The petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, refusing to regularise the service of the petitioner on the basis of Circular dated 3.1.1983. According to him, a number of similarly situated persons have been regularised in other departments and therefore, the respondents should have issued an appropriate order of regularisation of his services also.