JEE RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as a Peon in the Haryana Public Service Commission, submitted various representations for the regularisation of his services. Having failed to get the requisite relief, he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10353 of 1997. The petitioner alleges that this petition had come up for hearing before a Division Bench on July 22, 1997 and was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation in terms of the policy decision/government instructions dated 7.3.96/18.3.96/8.4.96 by passing a speaking order...' In pursuance of these directions, the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission passed the order dated September 8, 1997 and rejected the petitioner's claim. He found that the petitioner did not fulfil the prescribed criterion and was, thus, not entitled to the benefit of regularisation. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He alleges that the "approach of the respondents is against the terms and conditions and the instructions of the government for regularisation.... and according to the instructions, a person who has completed two years service as on (sic) ad hoc on 31.1.1996 is entitled to be regularised". He further points out that he had submitted a representation to Mr. R.P. Singh, IAS, Member of the Commission. He had forwarded his representation according to which he was entitled to be regularised. The petitioner has even produced a copy of the communication sent by Mr. R.P. Singh, IAS, Member of the Commission. He further alleges that the services of one Jang Bahadur who was employed later than him had been regularised. He also asserts that about 5-6 posts on which only one person has been shown as regular are available. He, consequently, prays that the order dated September 8, 1997, a copy of which is at Annexure P. 22 be quashed and that the respondents be directed to regularise his services.

(2.) A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the Commission by Mr. R.P. Sukhija, IAS. It has been inter alia pointed out that the petitioner's claim is not covered by the instructions issued by the Government vide letters dated March 7, 1996 and March 18, 1996. Factually, the petitioner had been appointed initially on March 4, 1991 and he had served till June 21, 1991. Thereafter, he had served for the month of July 1991 as a daily wager. It has been averred that the petitioner "was not in the service of the respondent between (from) 1.8.1991 to 13.9.1993. He had then served from September 14, 1993 to September 11, 1997 on ad hoc basis." It has also been pointed out that the instructions issued vide letter dated April 8, 1996 were withdrawn by the Government on May 15, 1997. The petitioner's claim for regularisation was considered. Since he did not fulfil the prescribed conditions of eligibility for regularisation, his claim was rejected. According to the respondents, "there are 11 posts of Peons in the office of Haryana Public Service Commission. All the 11 posts are being manned by regular Peons and no post of Peon is lying vacant nor any person is working on ad hoc basis on the post of Peon.... " With regard to the petitioner's claim that the services of Jang Bahadur had been regularised, it has been pointed out that he had been appointed as a Water Carrier through the Employment Exchange. He was appointed as a Peon against a vacant post vide order dated July 24, 1997.

(3.) The petitioner then filed C.M. No. 27458 of 1997 on November 28, 1997. He prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of the salary to the petitioner from September 1997 onwards. A reply was filed on behalf of the Commission by its Secretary pointing out that the petitioner's services had been terminated on September 11, 1997 and that the full salary had been paid to him. The case was listed for arguments before a Bench consisting of Jawahar Lal Gupta and N.C. Khichi, JJ. on January 28, 1998. It was adjourned at the request of the counsel for the petitioner to "enable him to produce a copy of the instructions under which the claim for regularisation is being made." The petitioner filed C.M. No. 3009 of 1998. In para 2, he inter alia averred that "the counsel for the petitioner was directed to place on record the instructions issued by the Government in respect of ad hoc employees who have completed two years' service on 31.1.1996 for regularisation as the case of the petitioner is covered by the policy which was issued by the Government in 1996 and inadvertrntly the policy (sic) dated 7th March, 18th March, 1996 were attached which were in respect of the daily rated/casual workers etc. and the other policy which was issued by the government vide notification dated 17.6.1997 was not attached." He prayed that "copy of the gazette notification dated 17.6.1997 be allowed to be placed on record as Annexure P. 29 and be read as part of this petition...." A reply to this application was filed on behalf of the respondent by Mr. R.P. Sukhija, IAS in which it was inter alia averred that the "instructions Annexure P. 29 dated 17.6.1997 sought to be placed on record are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The aforesaid instructions are applicable to Group 'C' employees whereas the petitioner who was engaged as a Peon on ad hoc basis from time to time does not fall in the category of Group 'C' employees." It was, thus, prayed that the misc. application be dismissed.