Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) The petitioners have approached this Court claiming regularisation of service in accordance with the policy decision dated 1.10.2003 Annexure P-4 issued by the respondents which was further amended on 10.2.2004 or from the date their juniors have been regularised with all consequential benefits.
(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Beldars and Mali on different dates and their services were terminated all of a sudden which resulted in issue being referred to the Industrial Tribunal for decision wherein awards were passed in favour of the petitioners holding the termination of the services of the petitioners to be not in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners were reinstated in service and were granted continuity. The details of the petitioners i.e. the date of appointment, termination and date of award is as follows: JUDGEMENT_170_LAWS(P&H)9_20121.html It is on this basis that the petitioners have now approached the Court asserting that they have been discriminated and their claim for regularisation has not been granted although juniors to them and similarly placed, have been regularised. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court passed in Arun Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others in CWP No.4821 of 2011 decided on 19.4.2012 as also order passed by this Court in Ved Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others CWP No.1169 of 2009 decided on 10.2.2012. He on this basis contends that the petitioners are entitled to the claim as has been made in the present writ petition.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents states that the petitioners have only attached the award of one of the petitioners namely Krishan, petitioner No.1. Award in favour of the other petitioners have not been placed on record. His further contention is that the petitioners did not full fill the requirement of the policy dated 1.10.2003 which would entitle them to the grant of regularisation of the services. He states that the petitioners were not appointed against any permanent vacancy and they were seasonal forestry workers who were appointed on daily wage basis. The Constitutional scheme which mandated issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and on consideration of the candidature of the applicants for appointment on public post has not been complied with. Statutory rules governing the service has not been followed in the case of petitioners thus dis-entitling the petitioners of their claim of regularisation. His further contention is that all policies issued by the State of Haryana for regularisation of the services of the daily wage employees have been withdrawn by the Government of Haryana after the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1. He on this basis contends that the writ petition deserves to be d;