JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) Can the State or its instrumentalities refuse to regularise the services of an employee on the ground that there is a break of more than a month despite the fact that the employee was not to blame or the fact that the absence was for reasons entirely beyond his control? This question has been answered in favour of the employee by different Benches of this Court. The correctness of the view has been doubted. Thus, these petitions were admitted for hearing before a Full Bench.
(2.) The issue arises in the context of the instructions issued by the State Government in March, 1996. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the following questions arise: 1. Can the competent authority refuse to regularise the services of a daily wager merely because there was a break of more than a month even when the employer had caused the interruption in service? 2. Can the employer refuse to regularise the services of an employee who had remained absent from duty for a continuous period of more than a month for reasons entirely beyond his control? 3. Does the absence of the employee on January 31, 1996 disentitle him to claim regularisation in service despite the fact that he had remained in service prior to and after that date? 4. Can this Court not go into these matters in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution? Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in CWP No. 2067 of 1997. These may be briefly noticed. The petitioners were appointed as 'Beldars' in the Public Works Department. The appointments were on daily wages. These were made on different dates during the period from the year 1988 to February 1, 1993. Their services were terminated on December 15. 1996. The petitioners maintain that in view of the instructions issued by the Government vide letters dated March 7, 1996 and March 18, 1996, they were entitled to regularisation of their services. The action of the respondents in ordering termination was illegal and violative of the instructions. Thus, the petitioners pray that the 'oral order' by which their services were terminated on December 15, 1996 be quashed and that the respondents be directed to regularise their services with effect from the prescribed date viz. February 1, 1996. They also claim all the consequential benefits.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department. It has been averred that the petitioners were engaged on temporary muster rolls on daily wages with effect from November 21, 1991, February 3, 1992, December 24, 1992, February 3, 1993 and March 28, (sic) respectively. They were engaged for doing temporary work. Only petitioner No.3 viz. Hem Raj was present on January 31, 1996. The year wise details of the days for which each of the petitioners had worked have been given in the documents at Annexures R. 1 to R.5 with the written statement, the services of the petitioners "were not terminated by the respondents...." They have "not turned up at (on) their own for doing the work". Since the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions laid down in the Government Circulars, their services were not regularised.;