- (1.) Petitioners were appointed as Beldar-cum-Malis on daily wage basis in the Forest Department between the years 1982-1996. Their services were terminated in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act), against which they raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court found the termination to be not in accordance with law and declared it to be null and void thereby ordering their reinstatement in service with continuity thereof. These awards were not challenged by the respondents and the petitioners were reinstated in service on different dates depending upon the date of the award. They, on the basis of the reinstatement, approached the respondents for regularization of their services from the date persons junior to them stood regularized and also claimed regularization on the basis of the observations made in para 53 by the Supreme Court in its judgment passed in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 109 FLR 826 as they had completed more than 10 years of service on the date of the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court and also on the ground that persons junior to them stood regularized in pursuance to the directions issued by the Supreme Court referred to above vide order dated 14.10.2006 according to which Jai Bhagwan, Bijender, Pirthavi, Shamsher, Zela @ Zile, Suresh and Mohinder, who were working in the Bhiwani Territorial Division where the petitioners are also performing their duties. It has further been submitted that these persons whose services have been regularized were petitioners along with the present petitioners in CWP No. 8820 of 2004 and the respondent-Authorities adopted a pick and choose policy while considering the claims for regularization of the services which amounted to gross-violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When this occurred, petitioners filed a representation claiming the benefit of regularization and when no response was received, petitioners filed CWP No. 9921 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2010 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in the light of observations made in para 53 of the judgment passed in Uma Devi's case , within a period of six months. The claim of the petitioners was considered and rejected vide order dated 25.8.2010 by the Divisional Forest Officer on the ground that the petitioners were neither engaged against sanctioned post nor any advertisement was issued before they were employed. Their appointment is for a specific period i.e. on daily wage basis and that there are no Rules under which appointment/employment can be made of a workman on daily wage basis. This order dated 25.8.2010 (Annexure P-5) has been challenged by the petitioners through the present writ petition claiming the same to be not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed on the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to para 53 of the judgment passed in Uma Devi's case in case State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others, 2010 127 FLR 12 Petitioners have further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 1169 of 2009 titled as Ved Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.2.2012.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has argued the case on the above lines and has submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents submits that the regularization policies under which the petitioners are claiming regularization of their services stand already withdrawn by the State of Haryana after the passing of judgment by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case . His contention is that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of regularization on the ground that they were neither appointed as per the Statutory Rules governing the service nor were they appointed on sanctioned posts. Petitioners are daily wage labourers who are engaged on seasonal work. There being no specific Rule(s) governing the engagement/appointment of labourers on daily wage basis, their services cannot be regularized. For appointment to a Government post, it is mandatory that the said post be advertised first giving a chance to all those to compete for the post and it is only thereafter that the post can be filled up. Such a procedure was not followed while appointing the petitioners which disentitles them to the claim for regularization. An order of regularization passed in violation of these provisions would not be in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case . Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. G.V. Chandrashekar, 2009 121 FLR 521 to contend that the appointments of the petitioners being violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India, cannot be sustained and, therefore, benefit of regularization cannot be extended to them. Accordingly, supporting the impugned order of rejection of the claim of the petitioners for regularization, Counsel contends that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;