CWP No.9714 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.9714 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.05.2010 **** Rajwant Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. SK Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, learned DAG Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to call upon the respondents to file their counter-affidavit at this stage. (2). The petitioner is an ad hoc employee and is working as such since 28.03.1980. She seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize her services. (3). The facts of the case are a glaring example of the administrative apathy and inaction of the respondents. (4). The petitioner joined as a Punjabi Teacher in the Education Department, Government of Punjab on 28th CWP No.9714 of 2010.doc - 2 – March, 1980 against a leave vacancy and continued to work as such without any break till 15th May, 1956 either against the leave vacancy or a regular post. She was thereafter transferred to Government High School, Dabwala Kalan, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur against a regular vacant post where she joined on 16.05.1986. Since then the petitioner is working continuously without any break. Her services, however, have not been regularized so far despite one or the other Policies issued by the State Government for regularization of services of its ad hoc employees. (5). The petitioner now seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize her services w.e.f. 1st April, 1985 when she had completed 2 years’ service in terms of the Instructions dated 28.03.1985 (Annexure P12) and/or subsequent instructions as may be found applicable in her case. (6). The petitioner has further averred that despite repeated representations including dated 15.02.1997, 20.02.1998 & 10.04.2007 (Annexure P18 to P20, respectively), no final decision has been taken so far and the matter is still stated to be under active consideration of the authorities. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. In my considered CWP No.9714 of 2010.doc - 3 – view, it would be travesty of justice to call or brand the petitioner, who spent more than 30 years in the service of the respondent-Department, as an ‘ad hoc employee’. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner was lacking in qualification or was disqualified for appointment to Government service for any other valid reason, the respondents ought to have acted promptly to dispense with her services. It is a glaring example of human exploitation and that too by a ‘Welfare State’ who unhesitatingly took work and availed services of the petitioner for over three decades and still kept the sword of uncertainty on her neck. The inaction, deliberately or otherwise, is per se arbitrary and against all canons of service jurisprudence. However, instead of giving a final view on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to take appropriate decision for regularization of services of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and grant her all consequential service benefits within the stipulated period, if she is found entitled thereto. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.9714 of 2010.doc - 4 – 24.05.2010 vishal shonkar