IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1209 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2009 State of Haryana. -----Appellant Vs. Kamla Devi. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana. for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. The respondent was working as daily wager and after about one year service, her services were terminated. On reference to the Labour Court, termination was held to be illegal and she was directed to be reinstated with continuation of service and 1/3rd backwages. Accordingly, the respondent was reinstated and backwages, as directed, were paid. Thereafter, the respondent filed writ petition in this Court, seeking direction for regularization, which was opposed by relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others 2006(4) SCC 1. 2. Learned Single Judge directed that since appointment of the respondent was not illegal and there being no policy of making recruitment of daily wager by following law, the LPA No.1209 of 2009 respondent was entitled to benefit of observations made in Uma Devi (supra), laying down that where a person had continued to work for more than 10 years, regularization of such employee may have to be considered by making distinction in irregular appointment from illegal appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the respondent was as daily wager and if the respondent was to get reinstatement and benefit of continuity of service, her reinstatement was to be only as a daily wager, the respondent had no right of regularization. 4. We find the argument raised to be premature, as learned Single Judge has merely directed consideration of case of the respondent on the date of award, after recording a finding that the appointment was not illegal but irregular. If the respondent is not found to be eligible for regularization, the appellant has to pass an appropriate order in this regard which could be considered on its own merit in appropriate proceedings. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge, at this stage. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 11, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2