JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-1994-5-170
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 27,1994

JOGINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CASSELL AND CO. V. BROOME [REFERRED]
PRAKASH CHANDRA PATHAK VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
DARYAO HURMAT S O SATWA MAHENDRA LAL JAINI ROOP CHAND BRUHAN KUMAR SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA DALVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
BISWABAHAN DAS VS. GOPEN CHANDRA HAZARIKA [REFERRED]
B SHAMA RAO VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY [REFERRED]
V D DHANWATEY IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADHYA PRADESH NAGPUR AND BHANDARA IN BOTH APPEALS [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AMRITSAR VS. HAZARA SINGH [REFERRED]
LAKSHMI SHANKER SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
JASWANT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KAUSALYA DEVI BOGRA SYED YUSLJFUDDIN SYED ZIAUDDIN VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AURANGABAD:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CHANDAN NAGAR WEST BENGAL VS. DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED]
SHENOY AND CO VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CIRCLE II BANGALORE:STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY PRABHAT MANDAL VS. PRABHAT MANDAL REGD ANDHERI:PRABHAT MANDAL:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [REFERRED]
ANIL KUMAR NEOTIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED]
DHARWAD DISTT P W D LITERATE DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS II ENGINEERING OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
JACOB M PUTHUPARAMBIL JACOB M PUTHUPARAMBIL P MOHANAN SASIDHARAN C P C A JOSE MARY C L NAZAR K M P V SASIKUMAR PARASSALA SIVANANDAN M S SREEKUMAR VS. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF KERALA:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KER [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA [REFERRED]
VIKRAMJITSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT HORTICULTURE EMPLOYEES UNION VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION DELHI [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MEHANGA RAM [REFERRED]
PIARA SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [REFERRED]
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

P C M S ASSOCIATION PUNJAB VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-1302] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 7442, 7052, 7501, 7535, 7706, 7866, 7679, 7680,7947, 8312, 7189, 7329, 7195, 7322, 7133, 7579, 7495, 7496, 7500, 7260, 8169, 8170, 8902, 7309, 7504, 7510, 7527, 7342, 7603, 7651, 7642, 6999, 7120, 7294 of 1993, 49, 2477 and 2864 of 1994 as pleadings in all these petitions are substantially on the same pattern and the question of law involved too is almost identical. For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the pleadings and Annexures of Civil Writ Petition No. 7442 of 1993. Reference will also be made to the additional points raised by some of the writ petitioners and would be dealt separately.
(2.)Petitioners have sought issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to absorb the petitioners on other projects such as Thein Dam, Shahpur Kandi Barage, Shah Nehar Project, Mukerian Hydel Project, Power House No. 5, Pong Dam and Bhakra teas Management Board, Nangal and after their absorption in the above mentioned projects, their services be regularised on these projects as most of them have worked continuously for 12 years and in all cases more than five years as work-charged employees. Further direction has been sought that the respondents be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 30.6.1993.
(3.)As per averments made in the petition, the petitioners are drivers, T-mates, Bus Conductors, Turners, Operators, Mechanics, Beldars, and Welders who were appointed quite long back in the Mukerian Hydel Project, Talwara. As per particulars given in para No. 2 of the petition, the petitioners of these petitions were appointed in between the year 1979 to 1980. The case of the petitioners is that this project along with others such like projects, namely, Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project, Thein Dam Project, Sutlej Yamuna Canal Project, Shahpur Nehar Project and Shahpur Kandi Barage Project, have, in fact, been started by the Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab and thus for all purposes are directly under the control of Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab and so are entitled to be regularised in the Irrigation Department even if they have become surplus on account of completion of the project. It is further the case of the petitioners that though persons working under different projects started by the Irrigation Department were, in fact, controlled by the Irrigation Department, yet different standards were being employed for regularisation of the services of these work-charged employees which caused heart burning and so led some of these employees to challenge the arbitrariness of the action of the respondents by filing civil writ petition in this Court. Reference has been made to the Civil Writ Petition No. 718 of 1986 wherein specific averment was made that all work-charged employees working on all these projects be treated equally for all purposes i.e. retrenchment, seniority and other benefits. This Court vide judgment dated May 30, 1986, granted the desired relief. However, this decision was reversed by the Letters Patent Bench holding that the minutes of the meeting held on December 17, 1994 are in the nature of executive instructions and no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State. The Division Bench after holding that no legal right accrues to the petitioners, yet directed the respondents to take the retrenched employees in other projects or in any other service of the government according to the qualifications of each of the employees and their fitness. This direction was to be complied with within a period of six months from the date of the order. Apprehending their termination w.e.f. 30.6.1993, the petitioners have sought direction that they are entitled to be absorbed on any other project of the Irrigation Department and thus their services are not liable to be terminated. In addition thereto, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to prepare a joint seniority list of the various projects undertaken by the Irrigation Department and thereafter the same be given effect to while determining their absorption and regularisation etc.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.