- (1.) By this order I will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 526 and 1054 of 2012. The petitioners were employees of Punjab Women & Children Development and Welfare Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PUNWAC) which was closed on account of the losses that it had suffered. A decision was taken at that point of time that the surplus employees beyond the functional requirement be absorbed in Government service or other public undertakings of the State if they possess the prescribed qualifications vis- -vis the available posts. It was also stipulated that till their absorption takes place, they will continue to serve the Corporation on the terms and conditions admissible to them. The State Government then absorbed the employees who were declared surplus by the Corporation on the principle of Last come first go. By implication, the persons who were junior most in the Corporation, stood benefited by the absorption in Government service.
(2.) The petitioners and some other similarly situated persons continued to work in the Corporation with an expectation that they too would be absorbed. On 13.3.1995, the Government came out with a set of instructions and stated that after 13.3.1995, the surplus employees of various Corporations and Boards were not to be absorbed, but were given the benefit Golden Handshake.
(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioners and other persons who were not given the benefit of absorption in Government service, were given this benefit of Golden Handshake. A challenge was made by way of C.W.P. Nos. 18263 of 1996 and 8789 of 1994 as also some other petitions which find mention in the impugned order as well as in pleading that the employees who were absorbed in service, were junior to the petitioners therein and thus the action of the respondents was discriminatory and arbitrary. During the course of proceedings in these petitions, learned counsel representing the State put forward proposals that in case the petitioners therein made a representation, the matter would be looked into by a Committee to be headed by the Chief Secretary. The Court then disposed of the petition in the light of the proposal made by the learned counsel for the State, but preserved the rights of the petitioners and made an observation offering a fond hope that the State would act as a model employer and attempt "to wipe out the tears of the employees who had been in the corridors of the Court since 1993".;