Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3371 (PNJ)

Satbir v. State Of Haryana

2006-08-24

M.M.KUMAR, M.M.S.BEDI

body2006
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18564 and 18916 of 2005. The facts are being referred from Civil Writ Petition No. 18564 of 2005. 2. The petitioners, at one stage, were appointed by the respondents on daily wages. Petitioner No. 1 Satbir Singh has worked from February 17, 1997 to February 23, 1997 for 7 days and petitioner No. 2 has worked for 75 days from December 20, 1996 to December 31, 1996 and January 4, 1997 to March 7, 1997. Petitioner No. 1 had worked as Clerk whereas petitioner No. 2 had worked as Sweeper. The petitioners were employed in the Municipal Committee- respondent No. 4 at a time when there was strike by the Municipal employees in the respondent State. There was a policy floated by the respondent State on May 13, 1997 stipulating that those daily wager employees who were recruited against vacancies during strike were to be adjusted according to their seniority against available posts (P-2). Another policy floated by the respondents was with regard to payment of wages to employees appointed on regular basis during strike period on July 3, 1997 (P-3). The petitioners have claimed by filing the instant petition on November 21, 2005 that the order dated August 25, 2005 passed by the respondents is liable to be set aside. It is appropriate to mention that earlier the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7609 of 2002, which came up for consideration before this Court on February 21, 2005. It was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant policy of the State. Accordingly, the order dated August 25, 2005 has been passed (P-12). The operative part of the order which gives numerous reasons for rejecting the claim made by the petitioners reads as under: 1. They were not recruited by the competent authority as they were neither appointed by the Deputy Commissioner nor at the directions of the then Deputy Commissioner. They were merely kept on daily wages muster roll for a few days by the Municipal Committee directly. As such their claim is not justifiable. 2. That the representationists merely worked on daily wages for a period which is given below, for which they have been duly paid by the Municipality, as per Muster Rolls. They were merely kept on daily wages muster roll for a few days by the Municipal Committee directly. As such their claim is not justifiable. 2. That the representationists merely worked on daily wages for a period which is given below, for which they have been duly paid by the Municipality, as per Muster Rolls. Moreover, they did not work throughout the period of strike. Name of the employees Period No. of who were on daily wages. days. Sh. Satbir Singh S/o Shri 17.2.97 to 23.2.97 07 Balkar Singh Sh. Ram Lal S/o Sh. Satya 20.12.96 to 31.12.96 Narain and 4.1.96 to 7.3.97 75 3. The above representationists are not covered by the instructions issued by the Government letter Annexure P-1, P-2 to P-6 and P-9 as the representationists were not appointed by the competent authority i.e. the then Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. The case of representationists is also not covered by decision of Hon ble High Court passed on 24.7.2003 in CWP No. 8070/99 tilted as Satbir and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., as facts in that case are different from those in the present case. No other point is urged or pressed by the representationists. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that no vested right is enjoyed by the petitioners merely by working for a short period of 7 days and 75 days respectively. Moreover, we find considerable force in the reasoning given in the impugned order dated August 25, 2005 (P-12) as it has been pointed out that the petitioners were never recruited by the Deputy Commissioner nor at his direction. They were merely kept on daily wages muster roll for few days and they had worked only for 7 and 75 days. Accordingly, it has been correctly held that their cases were not covered by the policy instructions issued by the Government on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners (P-2 and P-3). The pleas which have been raised in the impugned order have been reiterated in the written statements filed by respondent No. 4 as well as by respondent No. 3. 4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition. The pleas which have been raised in the impugned order have been reiterated in the written statements filed by respondent No. 4 as well as by respondent No. 3. 4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the petition. Moreover, the petitioners had worked in the year 1997/1996 and they had approached this Court in the year 2002 when their writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents to consider their case in accordance with the policy instructions. The aforementioned order has been challenged before us now, which is after a period of more than four years. 5. The claim is even otherwise stale and time barred. Dismissed.