CWP NO. 4410 OF 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 4410 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th July, 2011. Dr. Gurpal Singh Randhawa Petitioner through Mr. R.N.Raina, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Anr. Respondents through Ms. Charu Tuli, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] One of the reliefs sought by the petitioner is to issue a direction for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.04.1985. The admitted facts are that the petitioner along with hundreds of other Doctors was appointed as a Medical Officer vide order dated 13.03.1984. The medical examination of the petitioner took place on 30.03.1984 at Amritsar. 31.03.1984 and 01.04.1984 being Saturday and Sunday, he could join his duties at Gurdaspur on 02.04.1984 only. Subsequently, the State Government regularized the services of all those doctors who had completed on year service as on 31.03.1985. The petitioner was denied the benefit of regularization for the incidental fact, noticed above. The services of the petitioner were subsequently regularized in the year 1990. Some of the doctors [like one Dr. Jag Mohan Singh] who were the petitioner's batch- mates and had joined the services on 07.04.1984 and 17.04.1984, i.e., after the petitioner, approached this Court in CWP No. 942 of CWP NO. 4410 OF 2009. ::-2-:: 1988 seeking a direction for regularization of their services along with 158 other ad-hoc doctors whose services stood regularized on completion of one year service as on 31.03.1985 after taking the posts out of the purview of the Public Service Commission. 2. The afore-stated writ petition came up for final hearing before a Coordinate Bench and was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2008 with a direction to consider their claim for regularization of services by maintaining the parity in counting one year's service from the date of issuance of the appointment order irrespective of the dates of joining. The Bench observed as under:- “It is not in dispute that some of the doctors who were regularized were appointed along with petitioners. What is the basis for fixation of cut off date is not known. As a matter of fact, the petitioners appointment has to be construed from 13.3.1984 as is evident from Annexure P- 1 which itself is the appointment order. Their joining the service in the month of April, 1984 was only on the basis of the option given by the State to them for medical examination either on 16.3.1984 or 30.3.1984. Once they are found fit, their appointment has to be and should be construed from the date of the issue of the letter dated 13.3.1984 and, thus, they have completed one year as on 31.3.1985. In this view of the matter, the petitioners can not be denied the benefit of regularization as accorded to other similarly situated doctors”. [3]. It is stated that the directions in the case of Dr. Jag Mohan Singh [supra] have since been implemented and the services of the writ-petitioners have been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1985 vide order dated 23.03.2011. [4]. The petitioner is a similarly placed person who had rather CWP NO. 4410 OF 2009. ::-3-:: joined the services on 02.04.1984 as compared to Dr. Jag Mohan Singh who joined on 07.04.1984. Otherwise also, the regularization of services of the petitioner ought not to have been made dependent on the date of his joining when the doctors, higher or lower in order of merit, were brought on regular establishment w.e.f. 1.4.1985. As the dates already noticed above would speak for themselves, the petitioner can not be blamed for not joining the duties before 01.04.1984 as his medical examination itself was held on 30.03.1984 and 31.03.1984 and 01.04.1984 being Saturday and Sunday, he could join his duties on 02.04.1984 only. [5]. In these circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner for retrospective regularization of his services is disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Family Welfare to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services w.e.f. 1.4.1985 in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Dr. Jag Mohan Singh's case [supra] and the facts, referred to above. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits. [6]. As regards to the ACP claim of the petitioner, it is not discernible from the record as to whether the average reports for the year 1993-94 or 1997-98 were ever conveyed to the petitioner. It is also not known as to whether in terms of the government policy in vogue at the relevant time, the average reports were required to be conveyed or not. Suffice it to mention that in case the reports were required to be conveyed and the same were never conveyed to him, he might be entitled to contend that such reports can not be treated CWP NO. 4410 OF 2009. ::-4-:: as 'average' and should be deemed to be 'good' for the purposes of service benefits. Similarly, if the petitioner has got knowledge of these reports only during the pendency of this writ petition, he might assert his right to represent and seek up-gradation of these reports, especially when he is being deprived of ACP on account of these reports. In these circumstances and without expressing any final views on the petitioner's claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petitioner's claim with regard to the grant of ACP with liberty to him to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority, who shall consider the same objectively and uninfluenced of its previous order and pass appropriate fresh order within a period of three months from the date such representation is received along with a copy of this order. [7]. Disposed of. Dasti. July 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE