- (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P -8), vide which the claim for regularization of his services stands rejected on the ground that his engagement was illegal and not regular.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis in the respondents -department on 01.06.1978. He continued in service till his services were terminated vide order dated 31.07.1994. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Award dated 21.05.2001 (Annexure P -1) was passed by the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Panipat, wherein it was held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and with full back wages. Petitioner in compliance with the order passed by the Labour Court was reinstated in service. Thereafter, department preferred a writ petition against the order of reinstatement of the petitioner which was dismissed by this Court and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State of Haryana stands also dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2005 (Annexure P -2). Petitioner is continuing in service with the respondents. As per various policy decisions of the Government of Haryana, petitioner put forth his claim for regularization of his services which claim was duly forwarded by respondent No.4 -the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.2, PWD (B&R), Karnal, but the final authority instead of granting regularization of the services of the petitioner proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner vide the impugned communication dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P -8).
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.18837 of 2012, Ram Autar Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 17.01.2014, where it has been held that when person junior to the petitioner as per the length of service stands already regularized, rejection of the claim of the persons who are senior to the said person would amount to violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, Ran Nathe -respondent No.5 has already been regularized on the post of Beldar by the respondents vide order dated 30.06.2004. Not only respondent No.5, there are large number of other persons, details of which have been mentioned in Annexure P -9 and the name of the petitioner finds mentioned therein have been recommended for regularization, but the final order has not been passed. Counsel contends that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as has been claimed by him in the present writ petition. Apart from this, he contends that the stand taken by the respondents is that he has not been appointed against a sanctioned post nor due process of appointment was followed while making his appointment, thus, the principle as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Versus Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1would not permit regularization of service of petitioner. It has further been stated that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualification for the post of Beldar and, therefore, would not be entitled to the regularization of his services nor has he completed 240 days in each year and his appointment was purely on temporary basis and, therefore, he cannot be regularized in service. The counsel contends that the averments made in the written statement are merely based on conjectures and surmises and without any documents/statutory rules quoted to support the said assertion. He accordingly contends that the stand taken by the respondents cannot sustain.;