SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the Order Annexure P.4 be quashed and the service of the petitioner be regularised with effect from December 1, 1994. The petitioner was appointed as driver on daily wages with respondent No. 5 in July, 1993. According to the petitioner he has worked for more than 240 days in every year and under the policy of the Government the petitioner was entitled to be regularised with effect from November 30, 1994 as he had already put in 10 years of service on that date. The Government Policy has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P. 1.
(2.) The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 15357 of 1997 which was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated October 10, 1997, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in accordance with its policy. The respondents were directed to take a decision within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order and till then respondents were restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioner. On October 25, 1998 i.e. nearly after a lapse of one year, the respondents passed an order Annexure P.4 which reads as under: "Subject: Regarding regularisation of daily wagers - In respect of meeting dated October 8, 1998 of the Screening Review Committee. In view of the decision dated October 10, 1997 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Civil Writ Petition No. 15357 of 1997 filed by you, your case was considered by the Screening Review Committee in its meeting dated October 8, 1998 for regularisation. But after receiving the copy of report submitted by the Committee to this office, it is found that you are not eligible for regularisation. A copy of the report dated October 8, 1998 submitted by the Screening Review Committee is being sent to you for information."
(3.) Upon notice, the respondents filed the reply and contended that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in each year of the prescribed 10 years and as such he was not entitled to regularisation. It was also contended on behalf of the State that new policy has come into force in the current year and as such the case of the petitioner can only be considered in terms of the new policy. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government Policy Annexure P.I does not refer to "an employee working for 240 days of every year for the prescribed 10 years for service as on November 30, 1994", as such the stand of the respondents is without any merit. It is also contended that that order in fact is a' non-speaking one and the report of the Committee dated October 8, 1998 had not been supplied to the petitioner. The respondents, in paragraph No.5 of the written statement have, stated as under: "Para No.5 denied. The petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions to be regularised in view of P. 1. As explained in para No. 4, the petitioner has not completed 240 days in years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87.";