(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by denial of their regularisation despite taking work continuously from them for over 20 years in the work charged establishment. One of the petitioners, namely, petitioner no. 3, after filing of the writ petition attained the age of superannuation, but without getting the benefit of regularisation despite rendering service for over 20 years.
(2.) THE Finance Department of the State Government issued various resolutions relating to regularisation of the employees of the work charged establishment. On reading of the said Government decisions, contained in Memo No. 8954 dated 23.7.1975, 3058 dated 22.10.1984 and 6394. dated 23.10.1987, show that the Government decided to regularise all those who have completed five years of satisfactory service in the work charged establishment of the Works Department by conversion of the post itself occupied by such employees. It is true that vide resolution dated 23.10.1987, the Government decided that in future no appointment in the work charged establishment shall be made.
(3.) 9.2001, reported in 2005(4) PLJR 505. Learned counsel submitted that in the said case, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the order passed earlier in C.W.J.C No. 6212 of 1999, the validity of which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1573 of 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that this case is not covered by the principle decided in the abovementioned cases or any other case as the appointment of the petitioners was made in the year 1985. i.e., after imposition of ban by the State Government and, further, that on the basis of their said appointment they did not complete five years of service before the cut -off date i.e. 21.10.1984 in the work charged establishment, only whereafter one can claim for regularisation as per the earlier Government decision. In support of this he placed reliance on Finance Departments Resolution No. 3/PAR -01/87 (Part)/6394(2) dated 23rd October, 1987.