- (1.) THE present writ petition has been field by the petitioner in his Court on 19.2.2002 with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and : - (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to publish the seniority list category -wise. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner for regularisation may be considered against the existing 10% vacancies in the category of LDC. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to make regularisation against the 10% existing vacancies with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and (iv) Costs be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) FOR claiming regularisation, the petitioner had already approached this Court by way of earlier writ petition No.1731/1999 ­ Mahaveer Prasad V/s State Farm Corporation of India Ltd.. The learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dtd.9.5.2001 with the following directions: "Thus, from the aforesaid factual matrix it is evident that petitioner cannot be held to be eligible for the purpose of direct selection. He can claim regularisation as per the policy framed by the respondents and his case would be considered strictly in the framework of the said policy whenever his turn comes according to seniority and he falls within the zone of consideration for regularisation. Even if some persons below him in the seniority have been regularized that does not give right to the petitioner to be regularized as it it settled proposition of law that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality or give benefit of a wrong order as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneh Prabha (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of U.P. And Anr., (1996) 7 SCC 426; State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, JT 1997 SC 450; and other cases in M/s Faridabad Ct. Scan Centre Vs. D.G. Health Services and ors., JT 1997 (8) SC 171; and Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3SCC 494. In Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar AIR 2001 SCW 1458, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "Therefore by erroneous interpretation of the Rule if pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistake should be perpetuated by direction of the Court. It would be unjustifiable to submit that by appropriate writ, the Court should direct something which is contrary to the Statutory Rules. In such cases, there is no question of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. No person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is dehors the Statutory Rules nor there can be any estoppel. Further, in such cases there cannot be any consideration on the ground of hardship." Thus, in view of the above, the petition stands disposed of finally holding that petitioner cannot claim a right of regularisation out of turn. However, the respondents shall consider his case within the framework of the policy framed by them strictly in accordance with seniority whenever his turn comes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Upon issuance of notices, the respondents have again filed reply to the writ petition and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Manish Shishodia assured the Court that on the turn of the petitioner as per the decision taken by the respondent ­ State Farm Corporation, regularisation of the daily rated workers which was kept in abeyance for the period from 1998 to 2012, has again been operated and the case of the present petitioner will be considered for regularisation uopn his turn.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Sidhu however, submitted that since the petitioner's case was not so far considered and in view of judgment of learned Single Judge in another case against the same respondents in the case of Uda Ram V/s State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. reported in 2009(5) WLC (Raj.) 227, the learned Single Judge of this court directed regularisation of the petitioner, therefore, the respondents in the present case deserve to be directed again to regularize the services of the petitioner. Para 10 of the judgment of Uda Ram is quoted below for ready reference: "10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed and while following the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), I am of the opinion that the petitioner is admittedly working since 25.2.1984 as daily paid workder he is entitled for absorption/regularisation on the post in category III of Staff Regulations of respondent ­ Department as per his qualification because he has completed 24 years of service till today and still getting wage on daily rated basis which is against the principles of natural justice. Further it is directed that at the time of considering the case of petitioner for absorption/regularization, if on the basis of record it is found that petitioner is performing the duties of the post of Draftsman then he shall be considered for regularisation for the post of Draftsman, otherwise on other post as per his qualification in the category III of Regulations. Respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularisation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and grant all consequential benefits w.e.f. The date of filing writ petition which is 4.12.2004. No order as to costs." ;