RAJIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, I shall dispose of the aforementioned three writ petitions, as all of them are based upon similar facts and common questions of law arises for consideration before this Court. However, for sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.13348 of 2018.

(2.) Twenty petitioners, who are allegedly working under Municipal Council, Nangal-respondent no.3 have filed the instant writ petition, praying for a direction from this Court to respondent no.3 for permitting them to continue in service, in discharge of their duties and further for release of their salary for the last 4-5 months, which has been withheld by respondent no.3-Corporation. Further, prayer has been made for directing the said respondent-Corporation to regularize their services as they have been working in the respondent-Corporation for the last approximately 6-15 years.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners who have been working for the past many years continuously, have been illegally stopped from working on their posts by the respondent-Corporation on 12.05.2018, without issuing any show cause notice or any order, despite the fact that petitioners have been working under the respondent-Corporation directly. It is further submitted that a representation to this effect was given by the petitioners on 17.05.2018 (P- 4), whereby they had sought arrears of their salary for the last 4-5 months and had also requested the corporation to permit them to join their duties. However, without following any due procedure and instead of regularizing their services, petitioners have been left jobless and, therefore, the instant writ petition has been preferred. It has further urged that since petitioners have been working continuously for the last many years, therefore, they have a vested right to be regularized on the posts they have been working, as it is to be presumed that there is existence of regular work and requirement of regular posts in the Corporation. Finally, it is argued that in view of the settled position of law that no contractual employee can be replaced with another contractual employee, till regular appointments are made, the petitioners cannot be removed from services. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Hargurpratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. 2007(13) SCC 292, Dr. (Mrs.) Chanchal Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan 2003(2) S.C.T. 91 : 2003(3) SCC 485, Harminder Kaur and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2006(1) SCT 64, Smt. Parvinder Mohindru Vs. Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula and Anr. 2007(4) SCT 827 and Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2003(2) SCT 124.