YAD RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the abovementioned writ petition as well as other connected writ petitions* tabulated at the foot of the order, as common questions of law and facts are involved in them, which can conveniently be decided by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners have accepted the notification dated 31.08.2009 (Annex P-9) for over six years before they approached this Court seeking its quashing. The petitioners are one hundred percent blind persons appointed as Caners on retainership basis for canning the chairs in the Government Department/Offices in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Haryana. For the purpose of rehabilitation, the Government took a decision on 31.08.2009 to adjust 128 Caners in the Indian Red Cross Society in the office of Haryana State Branch on the post of Master Trainer with wages equivalent to the 4th Class employees in the pay band of Rs. 4400-7400+1300 G.P. in the basic salary of Rs. 6050 per month and other benefits that are approved from time to time by the Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch. To give effect to the policy decision, the notification was issued, which is under challenge in this bunch of petitions. The cadre would be diminishing.

(3.) The petitioners, who are aggrieved by their adjustment in the Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch, claim that they should be made regular in Government services under the policies of regularization. To say the least, the approach by way of legal redress under Article 226 of the Constitution against the notification dated 31.08.2009 is highly belated. It is asserted in the written statement put in to contest the case that the notification has been accepted by the petitioners without any objection/protest and they joined on the post of Master Trainer at District Level on the terms & conditions laid down therein. No representation or grievance towards the impugned notification was ever raised by the petitioners. The respondents assert that the petitions are highly time barred and deserve to be dismissed on the ground of huge delay and laches. Their status is neither of daily-wager nor ad hoc nor work-charged/casual employee of the State Government and they were not appointed against regular vacant posts. They were appointed/adjusted under a scheme of rehabilitation. They cannot claim regularization under any of the regularization policies (Annex P-3 & P-4). The respondents assert when the petitioners were appointed as Caners, they were permitted to undertake private work as mentioned in clause (3) of the appointment letter (Annex P1).