Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 945 (PNJ)

Hari Om v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-19

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this court through the present petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to regularise their services with effect from January 31, 1996 instead of March, 18, 1999. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioners with effect from the aforesaid date. 2. Certain facts may be noticed. The State Government of Haryana framed policy for regularisation of daily wagers on March 7, 1996 which was subsequently modified on March 18, 1996. It was decided that those daily wagers who had completed three years service on March 31, 1996 and had worked for 240 days in one year and did not have a break of more than 30 days and were in service on January 31, 1996 were entitled to the regularisation of their services. The petitioners claimed that they were covered under the policy and were entitled to the regularisation. They represented to the respondents for that purpose. Their request was ignored. The petitioners had to approach this court through Civil Writ Petition No. 18754 of 1998 along with two more persons viz. Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur. The relief claimed was the regularisation of their services. 3. The respondents filed a written statement in the aforesaid writ petition and conceded the claim of the present petitioners. It was stated that the services of the petitioners had been regularised but claim of the remaining two persons viz. Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur was contested. A copy of the written statement filed by the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition has been appended as Annexure P/1. Even with regard to those two persons viz. Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur, the writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated October 14, 1999. A direction was issued to the respondents that the service of the aforesaid Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur be regularised with effect from the due date" in the light of the policy dated March 1, 1996 and March 18, 1996. The writ petition with regard to the present petitioners was dismissed having been rendered in-fructuous. A copy of the aforesaid order dated October 14, 1999 passed by this Court is appended as Annexure P/2 with the petition. 4. The writ petition with regard to the present petitioners was dismissed having been rendered in-fructuous. A copy of the aforesaid order dated October 14, 1999 passed by this Court is appended as Annexure P/2 with the petition. 4. The petitioners found that their services had been regularised by letter No. Sports-Estt-99/7393 dated March 18, 1999 "with immediate effect". A copy of the aforesaid letter has been appended as Annexure P/3 with the petition. 5. The petitioners being not satisfied with the date of regularisation of their services viz. March 18, 1996 claimed that they were entitled to the aforesaid regularisation with effect from January 31, 1996. They represented to the respondents but no action was taken. The petitioners served legal notice to the respondents on February 9, 2000. The claim made by them was reiterated. A copy of the legal notice has been appended as Annexure P/4 with the petition. No action having been taken upon the representation and the legal notice, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. 6. A notice of the present writ petition was issued to the respondents. They have put in appearance. A written statement has been filed by them contesting the claim of the petitioners. The main objection taken by the respondents in the written statement is that since the petitioners had filed an earlier writ petition No. 18754 of 1998 and vide order dated October 14, 1999 the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed qua the petitioners and the petitioners never raised any objection or challenge to the same, therefore, the present petition was barred under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure being barred under the principle of res judicata. It is also stated in the written statement filed by the respondents that the factum of the regularisation of the petitioners was mentioned in the earlier written statement Annexure P-1, but the petitioners never objected to the same or made any further claim. The respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. We have heard Shri Anurag Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amol Rattan, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents. 8. We find that the present writ petition deserves to succeed, It is not in dispute that the present petitioners along with two other persons viz. 7. We have heard Shri Anurag Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amol Rattan, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents. 8. We find that the present writ petition deserves to succeed, It is not in dispute that the present petitioners along with two other persons viz. Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur had filed the earlier writ petition No. 18754 of 1998. In the written statement filed by the respondents to the aforesaid writ petition, the stand taken by them was that "petitioner No. 1 and 4 have already been regularised as Helper-Cook". However, claim of the other petitioners viz. Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur was contested. Subsequently, this court vide judgment dated October 14, 1999 upheld the claim of even the remaining these two petitioners and directed the respondents "to regularised their services with effect from the due date in the light of the policy of regularisation". Admittedly the due date under the policy is February 1, 1996. Since the claim of the present petitioners had been conceded and rather it was mentioned that their services stood already regularised, therefore, the writ petition qua them was dismissed having become infructuous. 9. The stand taken by the respondents now in the written statement that the writ petition qua the present petitioners had been dismissed is apparently baseless and against the record. When the other two persons viz. Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur had been granted the relief and the respondents had been directed to regularise their services with effect from February 1, 1996 even in a situation when their claim was being contested by the respondents then by any stretch of imagination it could not be held that the present petitioners, whose claim, though conceded in the earlier written statement, were still entitled to regularisation on a date later then Radhey Shyam and Tek Bahadur. 10. There is still another angle from which the present controversy can be viewed. It is not in dispute that vide policy dated March 7, 1996 and March 18, 1996, a one time benefit was granted to the persons who were in service as on January 31, 1996 and who had fulfilled the other remaining conditions laid down in the aforesaid policy. Thus, under the aforesaid policy either a person was eligible for regularisation on February 1, 1996 or was not eligible because of not falling within the policy. Thus, under the aforesaid policy either a person was eligible for regularisation on February 1, 1996 or was not eligible because of not falling within the policy. We find that a specific stand has been taken by the respondents before this court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners that the petitioners No. 1 and 4 had already been, regularised as "Helper-Cook". Thus, we do not find any justification whatsoever for denying the claim, of the petitioners for regularisation of their services with effect from February 1, 1996, If the petitioners were eligible on the date viz. February 1, 1996 under the aforesaid policy, there is absolutely no justification to fix any later date for regularisation of their services. 11. A similar view had been taken by one of us (Viney Mittal, J.) in CWP No. 13699 of 2000, decided on September 7, 2002 (Sant Lal v. State of Haryana etc.). 12. As regards the objection raised by the respondents that the present petition filed by the petitioners was barred under the principles of resjudicata, the said objection is merely to be noticed and rejected, Tne claim made by the petitioners in the earlier writ petition had been conceded. The services of the petitioners were regularised. It is only when the petitioners now came to know that their services had been regularised with effect from a date much subsequent to their entitlement that they have filed the present petition. The principles of resjudicata are not at all attracted under the circumstances of the case. 13. As a result of the above discussion, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners with effect from February 1, 1996. The petitioners would also be entitled to all consequential benefits arising from such regularisation from the aforesaid date viz. February 1, 1996. The payment of arrears due to the petitioners on such regularisation with effect from February 1, 1996 shall also be now calculated by the respondents within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them and shall be paid to the petitioners within a month thereafter. No costs.