JAVAID HASSAN KATHWARI Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner admittedly has been engaged as daily wager in the month of July, 1992, on completion of seven years of daily wage service, was entitled to regularization in accordance with SRO 64 of 1994. His case for regularization of service was pending consideration before respondent No. 3 but it was reported that he has remained absent from duty since July, 2007 as reflected in notice No. SCB/PF/73/102-5 dated 17.6.2009, issued by respondent No. 4, wherein it is further mentioned that a notice was served upon the petitioner for resuming duties within 30 days which he did not, then again vide notice dated 19.3.2009 petitioner has been impressed upon to resume duties within 20 days but again he failed, now in terms of the said notice dated 17.6.2009, he has been asked to resume duties within 10 days and in case of any failure, it will be presumed that he is not interested to continue and his name recommended for regularization under SRO 64 of 1994 will he struck off.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that basically petitioner had not absconded nor had remained absent but for the ill luck, he was picked up by Punjab Police from his residence as his name was given by some persons, being involved in connection with case registered as FIR No. 8 dated 20th August, 2006 P/S Sujanpur for commission of offences punishable under Section 4/4 Explosive Substances Act, Section 25,45,59 Arms Act and Section 411/489-CIPC, finally after facing trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, in sessions case No. 25 of 1-12-2006, earned acquittal vide judgment dated 5.7.2010, copy of which has been placed on record. On earning acquittal, the petitioner had submitted his joining report on 20.10.2010 before respondent No. 4. on 03.11.2010, the respondent. No. 4 returned joining report with the remarks that vide notices dated 17.6 2009 and 20.6.2009, within stipulated time petitioner was to resume his duty which he has failed and as a result thereof lost opportunity for regularization, therefore, resumption of duty after lapse one year and three months is not entertained and is returned back, hence the instant petition, wherein quash-ment of the aforesaid notices has been prayed for with a further direction that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been regularized from 21.7.1999 and to treat the petitioner in active service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that absence of petitioner from duty was neither deliberate nor intentional but was in view of the circum stances beyond control of the petitioner. Serving of notices for resumption of duties has no meaning as those notice were not served upon the petitioner because the petitioner was in the custody of Punjab Police till he earned acquittal in terms of the judgment as referred above, therefore, petitioner is entitled to regularisation as he had completed his seven years daily wage service in the year 1999 itself.