Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1615 (PNJ)

Sant Lal v. State of Haryana

2017-07-28

AMOL RATTAN SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 02.02.2017 (Annexure P-8), by which his claim for regularization in service as a Class-IV employee w.e.f. 01.01.2003, has been rejected on the ground that he was not covered by either the policies dated 07.03.1996, 18.03.1996, 01.10.2003 or 18.06.2014, he being in service purely on daily wages, which service comes to an end at the end of the day. It has further been stated that he was not working on a sanctioned post and that he did not work continuously in any month nor did he work for 240 days continuously in any year. 2. Yet further, reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006(4), SCC 1, (holding therein that regularization of employees should not be a norm but only in specific cases where at the time of the recruitment, due process was followed and there was a sanctioned post available). 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Award of the Labour Court passed in the petitioners' favour on 13.02.2013 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been granted continuity of service and back wages @ 40% on the basis of his last salary drawn, with him having been disengaged from service on 01.05.2007, after having been engaged as a daily wage labourer on 01.10.1995. 4. Though, undoubtedly, the petitioner would be deemed to have been in service since 1995 till the date of of his reinstatement, yet in the face of the fact that in the meanwhile in the year 2006 an authentative pronouncement came in the case of Umadevi (supra), to the effect that no regularization of service of employees would be made unless such initial appointments were made by due process and against sanctioned posts, such continuity of service would not, in the opinion of this Court, result in regularization of the service of the petitioner, though he would be obviously entitled to reinstatement in service, which has already been done. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court orders passed on 16.10.2006, by which regularization of similarly situated employee was undertaken by the respondents. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court orders passed on 16.10.2006, by which regularization of similarly situated employee was undertaken by the respondents. 6. He has also placed on record an order passed in the case of one Rajesh Kumar (Annexure P-11), who was also granted regularization in view of the Labour Court Award in his favour, passed on 08.10.2001. 7. However, continuity of service granted in the year 2001 would result in consideration for regularization on wholly different parameters, the said continuity having been granted at a time when the ratio of Umadevi's case was not in existence, but instructions for regularization were in existence, pursuant to which identically placed employees have been regularized. 8. Thus, Rajesh Kumar having been granted continuity of service upto his reinstatement ordered in 2001, would be deemed to have been in continuous service prior to the issuance of the instructions dated 01.10.2003, and therefore, eligible for being considered for regularization on parity with those regularized at that time. 9. The petitioner, however, having been granted continuity of service between 2007 and 2013, cannot claim such parity in the year 2003, with those who were regularized then, i.e. in 2003. 10. As regards the petitioners' claim for regularization in the year 2003 on the basis of his service between 1995 and 2003, other than the fact that no record with respect to his service during that period is presently known, the claim for such 'regularization' is also highly belated. Consequently, finding no merit in this petition, it is dismissed. 11. However, since the issue of regularization of employees vide a policy issued on 01.10.2014 is under consideration of a Division Bench, if the Division Bench upholds the validity of that policy and the petitioner seeks regularization in those terms, he would be at liberty to first approach the authorities for regularization in terms thereof, and if that is refused, obviously remedy as per law, would be available to him.