JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamous directing the respondents to regularise his services as per the decision of the Supreme Court and also the instructions of the State Government.

(2.) The petitioner has been appointed on daily wages in the office of respondent No. 3 on muster rolls without issuing any order of appointment during the years 1982 to 1993. According to him, he remained in service till 31st of March, 1993 and thereafter he has not been given any muster roll. Some other similarly situated persons approached this Court and their writ petitions were allowed. The services of the petitioners was not regularised, but the services of the persons junior to him have been regularised. In order to seek regularisation of his services, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 10890 of 1988. By an order dated 2nd June, 1993 this Court passed the following order:-

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a written statement is filed admitting that the petitioner was employed as casual labourers purely on daily wage basis and it is also contended that the petitioner is paid for the days he is present on duty. His services are not regular and since he is only casual labourer on daily wages, he is not entitled for regularisation. He further stated that in compliance with the order of this Court referred to above, the case of the petitioner was considered for regularisation in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and the representations of the petitioner were rejected vide orders Annexures R-3A, R-3B, R-4A and R- 4/B. According to the respondents the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a year during the period of five years from 1988 to 1993 and therefore he is not entitled to have his services regularised. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.