G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) THIS case is illustrative of the plight of low paid employees who are made to litigate more than once for enforcing their basic and bare rights in relation to their conditions of service. This is also illustrative of the growing malady in the administration and the attitude of defiance of the Court orders by the administrative authorities who are unmindful of the fact that their action and omission of not complying the Court orders or violating the same leads to the denigration of entire constitutional system.
(2.) THAKUR Singh and others filed writ petition No. 1093 of 1990 with a prayer for issue of a direction to the respondents to regularise their service. This petition was disposed of the High Court on December 3,1992 with a direction to the respondents to consider/reconsider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in term of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992-2) 102 P. L. R. 547 (S. C ). The court observed that the petitioners be granted relief of regularisation only if they fall within the purview of the judgment or any other subsequent instructions issued by the State Government in this behalf. Although order dated 3. 12. 1992 was not carried out by the respondents, instead of filing a contempt petition, Thakur Singh and Munshi, two of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 1093 of 1990, filed second petition which came to be registered as C. W. P. 263 of 1994. In this petition, the petitioners averred that they had been appointed as Beldars in Public Works Department of Government of Haryana in the year 1977 and that although they are continuously working since 1977, they have been paid as daily wagers and their services have not been regularised. The petitioners further stated that the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana issued instructions dated 27. 5. 1993 for regularisation of the service of work charged/causal/daily wages employees who had completed five years service as on 31. 3. 1993 and though the High Court had passed order dated 3. 12. 1992 for consideration of their case in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh's case, no action has been taken by the respondents for regularisation of their service. In reply, the respondents did not controvert the statement of the petitioners that they are in employment since 1977. However, they pleaded that petitioners do not fulfil the conditions specified in the judgment of the Supreme Court and the policy decision of Government of Haryana and for this reason they are not entitled to regularisation.
(3.) WHEN the writ petition was listed before the Court on 20. 7. 1994, the case was adjourned for 22. 7. 1994 on the request made by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. On 22. 7. 1994, learned DAG, Haryana made a statement that the order passed by the High Court on December 3, 1992 in C. W. P. No. 1093 of 1990 has been complied with by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD (B&r) Naraingarh, District Yamunanagar by passing order dated 21. 7. 1994. He made a statement that the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in service has been rejected. At that stage, the court enquired from him as to why steps were not taken for such a long time for compliance of the court's order dated December 3, 1992. The learned Deputy Advocate General expressed his inability to offer any justification on this count. After taking note of the fact that no justification has been offered by the respondents in general and particularly the respondent-Executive Engineer for non-compliance of the Court's order for the last 1-1/2 years, which compelled the petitioners to institute a second petition, the court suo-moto initiated contempt proceedings against the non-petitioner.;