- (1.) Although the petitioner has approached this Court on umpteen times yet her grievances have remained un-redressed. This is another petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing order dated 20.5.2002 (P-18) whereby her representation seeking regularisation of her services has been rejected, A further prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Swaran Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. C.W.P. No. 2117 of 1997, decided on 17.7.1997 (P-5). Accordingly, a direction has been sought to regularize the, services of the petitioner on the basis of the policy dated 4.3.1999 (P-l 1) with all consequential benefits such as fixation of pay, seniority and payment of arrears etc. to the petitioner.
(2.) Brief facts are that the petitioner was registered with the Employment Exchange, namely the District Employment Officer, Bathinda, on 28.9.1992. She was appointed as Class-IV employee on part time basis in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Bathinda, in the same year on a fixed salary of Rs. 502/- per month. She continued to work as such for some time. On 19.8.1993, her services were terminated. She sought a reference, which was decided against her by the Labour Court on 17.1.1996. The award of the Labour Court was set aside in C.W.P. No. 4201 of 1996, decided on 28.8.1996, which was filed by her. The case was remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding the reference afresh. The Labour Court again decided against the petitioner vide its award dated 22.5.1997. T he petitioner a gain challenged t he award of the Labour Court by filing C.W.P. No. 9606 of 1997. The petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service. The Division Bench judgment is reported as Simla Devi v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda (1998-2)119 P.L.R. 173. As per the direction, the petitioner has been taken back in service and paid the arrears of salary from 19.8.1993 till the date of rejoining i.e. 28.2.1998. The petitioner made two representations dated 1.7.2000 and 5.6.2001, inter alia, to regularise her services claiming that she has been working as part time worker for the last about 10 years. She filed C.W.P. No. 12349 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition on 20.8.2001 (P-13) directing the respondents to decide her representation by passing a speaking order. On 31.12.2001, respondent No. 3 i.e. Civil Surgeon, Bathinda, rejected her representation (P-15). The petitioner again filed C.W.P. No. 2920 of 2002 in which prayer was made for quashing the order dated 31.12.2001, respondent No. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of her services by passing the order that 'The representation of Smt. Simla Devi part time worker for regularization of services is rejected after consideration. There are no instructions of the Punjab Government for regularization of the services of part time'. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by respondent No. 3 with a direction to pass a fresh order within the specified time. The order passed by this Court reads as under: Respondent No. 3 Dr. P.N. Manni, Civil Surgeon Bathinda is present. He submits that he has joined this post only on 15th March, 2002, while the impugned order Annexure P-15, which is contrary of the Government instructions Annexure P-l H was passed by his predecessor. He tendered unqualified apology and submits that he would reconsider the case of the petitioner and decide the same afresh in accordance with the Government Policy which has also been submitted along with the reply filed in this Court. Apology is accepted. Let respondent No. 3 now pass an order afresh within one month from today, in light of the policy and the law laid down by this Court. Petition is disposed of.
(3.) In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner was asked to disclose her date of birth and educational qualifications. She filed an affidavit (P-17) disclosing that her date of birth is 3.3.1955 and she had gone to school for 2/3 years. It was further mentioned that she could sign her name but has no certificate to her credit. After considering the case of the petitioner, the Screening Committee recorded the following Order (P-l 8): As per the report of the Committee dated 15,05.2002 Smt. Shimla Devi came present and produced photo state copy of Caste Certificate in which "Caste of Chamar" has been declared as Scheduled Caste. She also produce her affidavit attested by Notary Bathinda, in which she has shown her Birth date as 3.3.1955. She also stated that she has gone to School for two three years and she consign and she has other proof of educational qualification. Smt. Shimla Devi as (has ) shown the name of her husband in the caste Certificate and affidavits Ram Kumar whereas in the writ petition the name of her husband has been shown as Raj Kumar. For regularization of part time workers as per policy P/11 framed by the Punjab Govt, vide its letter dated 4.3,1999, as per the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10.02.1998 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13565 of 1997 titled as Gurdev Kaur v. State of Punjab, the consideration has to be done as under: 1. As part time worker service should be ten years or more and attendance should be 30%. 2. At the time of regularization one should have qualifications as per new post. 3. There will be age relaxation for the period of part time service. 4. He should have been appointed through employment Exchange or on the basis of advertisement in the press. 5. He should be suitable for the job. The screening committee considered and rejected the case of Shimla Devi for regularization on Class IV post on the basis of above noted points: 1. Smt. Shimla Devi do not fulfill the period often years service as part time. 2. As per instruction issued vide Punjab Government Letter No. 14/114/97-4PP-3/7-38 dated 21.5.1998 middle pass educational qualification has been fixed for regular recruitment to the post of Class IV. Whereas, Smt. Shimla Devi does not fulfill this qualification she has also stated about this in her affidavit. 3. Smt. Shimla Devi could not produce except affidavit, any other proof such as Birth Certificate, School Leaving Certificate or Janam Patri in support of her age. However, as per photo copy of the Ration Card produced by her minimum age comes to 53, and on the date of her recruitment on 1.6.1992 it comes to 43 which is more than the fixed limit of age. 4. Smt. Shimla Devi was appointed on 1.6.1992 as part time on her application and her appointment as part time Class IV was not through Employment Exchange or through advertisement in Press. Keeping in view the above stated situation and the report of the screening committee that Shimla Devi is not suitable candidate for regular appointment as Class IV as she does not fulfill the condition as per the policy dated 4.3.1999 issued by the Government, I decide that Shimla Devi has no right for appointment on regular basis on Class IV as she does not fulfill the conditions of policy P/11. Dated 20.5.2002 Sd/-Civil Surgeon, Bathinda.;