JAGDISH SINGH RANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the State General Secretary of HUDA Public Health Karamchari Union has approached this Court with a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his services as a Pump Attendant with effect from April 29, 1983. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner joined service as a Work Munshi on April 29, 1983. This appointment was on daily wages. The petitioner alleges that "later on, ----designation was changed to Pump Attendant." He does not indicate the month or the year in which this change in designation had taken place. After he had worked for more than five years, the petitioner along with various other employees filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1654 of 1989 with a prayer that the respondents be directed to regularise the services in accordance with the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 72 of 1988 (Piara Singh v. State of Haryana). This writ petition was finally heard and decided by V.K. Bali, J. vide order dated November 4, 1992. His Lordship was pleased to observe that "the petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 3 SCT 201 and the instructions issued by the State Government in this behalf..........." The petitioner alleges that vide letter dated July 2, 1993, a copy of which is on record as Annexure P-1, the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division No. 2, Gurgaon, recommended his case for regularisation. No action was taken on this recommendation. However, in the meantime, the Sub Divisional Engineer called upon the petitioner to explain as to why he was absent from duty on November 29, 1992 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the log book was missing. The petitioner submitted his explanation. After consideration of the matter, the Sub Divisional Engineer vide letter dated November 27, 1992, a copy of which is on record as Annexure P-2, warned him to be more careful in future. Thereafter, even though the petitioner continued to attend to his duties, he was not assigned any work till December 31, 1992. Vide letter dated April 29, 1994, the Sub Divisional Engineer informed him that there was a break of 35 days in his service. Various employees in whose case the break was ''much more than-----35 days-----" were regularised. However, in spite of request, the respondents had refused to take any action in his case. Consequently, he filed the present writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to regularise his services.

(3.) This petition was listed for preliminary hearing on May 17, 1995. The Division Bench had directed the issue of notice of motion for August 14, 1995. On March 12, 1996, the Bench recorded that ''the counsel for the petitioner wants to amend the writ petition. On his request adjourned to 23.5.1996." Consequently, the amended writ petition was filed. The matter had then come up for hearing on May 23, 1996, when counsel for the respondents had prayed for time to file a written statement to the amended writ petition. Ultimately, this petition was admitted.