PALA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dtd. 10/4/2017 (Annexure P-8), whereby his case of regularization has been rejected. Further prayer has been made seeking direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner according to Policy decision dtd. 1/10/2003 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) The petitioner Sh. Pala Ram was appointed as Labourer-cum- Mali on 1/4/1989. He had been denied the relief earlier vide office order dtd. 28/8/2007 (Annexure P-3), which he had challenged in CWP-13060- 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 20/9/2016 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to consider the services of the petitioner either under the regularization Policy dtd. 1/10/2003 or under the Policy dated February 10, 2004. In compliance of this order, impugned order dtd. 10/4/2017 (Annexure P-8) was passed by respondent no.3-Divisional Forest Officer, Jind. It was observed in the impugned order that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages basis by local forest guard keeping in view the seasonal work on nursery and plantation. The nature of the work of Forest Department is totally seasonal and mostly limited to rainy season. It was further observed that although the petitioner completed 240 days in calendar year 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 but there was break in service for more than one month at one time and he was not originally appointed against sanctioned vacant post. Moreover, he was not on work prior to 31/1/1996. As such, the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions of said regularization policy dtd. 1/10/2003 and he was not found eligible for regularization. According to the policy of Haryana Govt. dtd. 1/10/2003, only such daily wages employees who have completed three years service on 30/9/2003 shall be regularized against their respective Group 'D' post provided they fulfill the requisite qualification and were originally appointed against vacant post. Provided further that they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and if the break in service of daily wage employee has been caused for no fault attributable to him, such break period should be condoned unless it is of an extra ordinary longer period. Moreover, no junior to the petitioner in Jind Division of the Forest Department has been regularized. The petitioner cannot claim himself senior to the workmen of other Divisions. It was held that the claim of the petitioner was not found to be covered under regularization policies dtd. 27/5/1993, 18/3/1996, 1/10/2003,, 18/6/2014 and 20/6/2014 issued by the State Govt. of Haryana from time to time. Hence, the claim of the petitioner was rejected and his services were not regularized. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Heard counsel for the parties. The present aspect has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Malathi Dass vs. Suresh and others 2014 (2) CLR 168, wherein it has been held that parity has to be maintained between similarly placed employees having been regularized by the State. Even if the regularization policies have been withdrawn after the judgment passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, 2006 (2) SCT 462, the State is duty bound to regularize the services of the respondents on the basis of parity. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it has been held as under: