- (1.) Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their services in the light of the instructions dated 27.05.1993 and 18.03.1996 issued by the Government of Haryana as persons junior to them stand regularized.
(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was appointed on daily wage basis in the year 1981 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed in the year 1991 in the respondent-department. The services of the petitioners despite instructions issued by the Government of Haryana for regularization dated 27.05.1993 and 07.03.1996 read with notification dated 18.03.1996 were not considered for regularization but instead the same were terminated without complying with the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioners raised an industrial dispute which resulted in passing of the Award dated 01.03.2006 (Annexure P-4) in the case of petitioner No. 1 wherein a finding was recorded that the petitioner had been continuously working with the respondents since the year 1981 till 01.02.1996 when his services were terminated. Similarly, in the case of Krishan Kumar-petitioner No. 2, Award was passed by the Labour Court on 07.11.2001 (Annexure P-5), wherein he was ordered to be reinstated in service on the previous post with continuity thereof and 80% back wages from the date of demand notice, whereas in the case of petitioner No. 1, he was reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. In pursuance to these awards passed in favour of the petitioners, they were again taken back in service and since then, they are serving the respondents.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the awards passed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioners, contends that the petitioners are in continuous service with the respondents since the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners is covered by the notifications dated 27.05.1993 and 07.03.1996 read with notification dated 18.03.1996, according to which, they are entitled to regularization. Another plea, which has been raised by the petitioners which is based on the discrimination meted out to the petitioners, is that the services of the persons, who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners, stand regularized by the respondents. It has been contended that they are similarly appointed on daily wage basis as the petitioners in the respondentdepartment much after the petitioners but their services have been regularized on various dates as has been mentioned in Annexure P- 9, which is an information received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act from the respondents. This assertion of the petitioners in the writ petition in para-11 has not been disputed on facts. However, it has been asserted that the benefit of the policies, which the petitioners are claiming, cannot be granted to them in the light of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1, in the light of which, the said policies stand withdrawn. He contends that persons, who were similarly situated as the petitioners and were junior to the petitioners, having been regularized, petitioners have a prior right of regularization and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be denied on this ground.;