Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 99 (PNJ)

Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana

2006-01-11

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
JUDGMENT VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of bunch of writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. For the same of convenience, the facts are borrowed from CWP No.14068 of 1993. 3. The petitioners were appointed as Helpers on daily wage basis by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh. On January 23,1992, the State Government took a policy decision to regularise the services of the daily wagers working in Haryana Roadways. For that purpose, a committee was constituted comprising of various officers. The aforesaid committee was required to conduct interviews for skilled, semi skilled and unskilled posts. It was further required that after determining the suitability of daily wager, a recommendation was to be made for regularizing the services of the daily wager. The aforesaid committee conducted interviews for various posts. Various incumbents working as daily wagers on different posts were interviewed. However, rather than regularizing the services of the aforesaid posts on which the aforesaid incumbents were working, various daily wagers were appointed to next higher posts. 4. Later on, it was realized by the authorities that the persons with a greater length of service had been ignored and the aforesaid committee had made appointments to the higher posts resulting in the promotion of daily wagers and that the aforesaid course was not open to the committee. Show cause notices were issued to the various persons for withdrawing the aforesaid appointment letters and for considering their regularization on the posts on which they were working as daily wagers. After considering the reply, orders were passed withdrawing the appointment of the aforesaid persons to the higher posts but regularizing them to the posts on which they were working as the daily wagers. One such order passed in Bhupinder Singh’s case dated - October 29,1993 has been appended as Annexure P.5 with the present petition. Similar order was passed in the case of Rehmat Ali, petitioner. The same is appended as Annexure P.6 with the present petition. It has been contented that similar orders were passed in the case of the other petitioner. The petitioners have impugned the aforesaid orders, through the present petition. 5. It has been pleaded in the petition by the petitioners that the orders Annexures P.5 and P.6 and the similar orders passed in the case of the other petitioners actually amounted to reversion. The petitioners have impugned the aforesaid orders, through the present petition. 5. It has been pleaded in the petition by the petitioners that the orders Annexures P.5 and P.6 and the similar orders passed in the case of the other petitioners actually amounted to reversion. On that account, it has been contended that since the petitioners have been selected by a duly constituted committee, therefore, the reversion order is wholly without justification. 6. The stand of the petitioners has been contested by the respondents. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been stated that the State Government had merely decided to regularize the daily wage employee on the post held by him on daily wage basis and that too on the basis of their seniority as daily wagers. It has also been maintained by the respondents that the daily wage employees could not have been appointed to a higher post and since the same had been done inadvertently, therefore, the said mistake had been corrected. 7. The present writ petitions were admitted in the year 1993. At the time of motion hearing, it was directed that status quo with regard to services of the petitioners would be maintained till further orders. Accordingly, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have continued on the higher posts on which they were appointed by the committee for a period of 12 years. It has also been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in some of the cases the petitioners have been further promoted. It has been argued that on account of the passage of time, the petitioners have acquired a vested right to hold the posts which they had been offered by the committee. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. 9. The facts are not in dispute. It is apparent from the perusal of the pleadings of the parties that the petitioners have admitted that they were working on various posts as daily wagers. It has also been admitted that in the year 1992 a committee had been constituted to regularize their services. It is thus apparent that the aforesaid committee had been constituted by the State Government to regularize the services of the daily wagers working in Haryana Roadways on the basis of their seniority as daily wagers. It has also been admitted that in the year 1992 a committee had been constituted to regularize their services. It is thus apparent that the aforesaid committee had been constituted by the State Government to regularize the services of the daily wagers working in Haryana Roadways on the basis of their seniority as daily wagers. The process of regularization necessarily implies that a person who was working on daily wage basis and on a temporary basis or on a work charge basis was to be treated as a regular incumbent of the said post. No promotion or appointment to the higher post is envisaged in such process of regularization. 10. It is thus apparent, as has been stated by the respondents in the written statement and also in the orders Annexures P.5 and P.6, that there was a mistake committed when the petitioners were offered the higher posts at the time of their regular appointment. The aforesaid mistake has been corrected by the department while orders Annexures P.5 and P.6 were passed. No grievance can be made by the petitioners against the aforesaid orders. As a matter of fact, it is apparent that the interest of the petitioners has been protected when their services have been regularized on the posts on which they were working as daily wagers. 11. In these circumstances, I do not find that any grievance can be made by the petitioners against the orders Annexures P.5 and P.6 or such similar orders. The claim of the petitioners in this regard is liable to be rejected. Although it is apparent that the petitioners have remained posted to the higher posts for a period of 12 years on account of interim orders passed by this Court but merely on account of the aforesaid fact, the petitioners cannot be deemed to have acquired any vested rights to the higher posts. 12. However, all the same, fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have worked on the aforesaid higher posts for a period of 12 years. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners have been promoted to the next higher posts. 12. However, all the same, fact cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have worked on the aforesaid higher posts for a period of 12 years. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some of the petitioners have been promoted to the next higher posts. In these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things if the competent authority takes into consideration the aforesaid fact, subject to the availability of the posts and also keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the appointment of the petitioners to the aforesaid higher posts is regularized. These observations, however, shall not confer upon the petitioners any enforceable right in them. 13. The present writ petitions are dismissed but with observations as made above.