Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) Petitioners have approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services in terms of the policy decision dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure-P-3).
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the said policy only on the ground that on the relevant date, petitioners were not in service which he contends is not sustainable in the light of the Awards dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure-P-1 and Annexure-P-2 respectively), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ambala. In these Awards, petitioners were granted continuity of service, although back wages were not granted. He, therefore, contends that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondents submits that the petitioners were not regularised not only on the ground that they were not in service on 30.9.2003 but also on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification. They were not appointed against any sanctioned/vacant posts and had not worked for 240 days in 12 preceding months without break of more than 30 days which is a mandated condition under the policy. It has further been argued by the counsel for respondents that all policies pertaining to the adhoc/contract/daily wage and part time workers stand withdrawn, vide notification dated 29.5.2007 in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others, 2006(4) SCC 1. She on this basis contends that the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.;