KARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Mali-cum-Chowkidar, seeks quashing of the order dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure P-6) whereby his case for regularization of service from an earlier date, i.e. 01.02.1996 has been rejected by respondent No.2.

(2.) The reasoning given for rejecting the claim is two-folds, that on an earlier occasion, there was litigation, as such, and the petitioner had been reinstated by the Labour Court vide award dated 17.09.2002 and he had been reinstated w.e.f. 25.03.2003 and thus, there was litigious employment which continued beyond the terms of his employment and resultantly, keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006(2) S.C.T. 462 : 2006 (4) SCC 1, the benefit was denied. Another reasoning which prevailed was that the services of the petitioner had been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2003 and he was estopped from claiming regularization from an earlier date since the regularization policy of 1996 had been withdrawn and the claim in his legal notice dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) was rejected.

(3.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the year 1992 and his services were terminated on 01.08.1993 and he had been reinstated with continuity in service but without backwages, vide award dated 17.09.2002. Since he had been given continuity in service, accordingly, he was entitled for regularization and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.02.1996. He made several requests and his case had been sent to respondent No.2 by respondent No.3, vide office order dated 25.08.2006 (Annexure P-4). As respondent No.2 was not acting on the said matter and accordingly, a legal notice dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure P-5) had been served. CWP-21319-2012 had been filed, which was disposed of on 19.10.2012, whereby directions had been issued to consider his case, which has now been rejected. Resultantly, it was pleaded that there were number of juniors who had been regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996 and therefore, he should also be granted the same benefit.