IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.5623 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.9.2011 Raj Rani ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.D.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M. No.13362 of 2011 is allowed as prayed for. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she was appointed on 27.9.1985 as a Junior Mistress and her services were terminated on 31.7.1987. She assailed her termination order by way of CWP No.4902 of 1987 in which the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana made a statement at the bar that the impugned order of termination dated 31.7.1987 had not been given effect to and shall not be acted upon and the petitioner is continuing in service, and further stated that fresh orders shall be passed in accordance with law. This resulted in the passing of order dated 4.2.1988. This order was also assailed by the petitioner in CWP No.1374 of 1988 which was admitted and operation of the impugned order was stayed. This writ C.W.P.No.5623 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petition was withdrawn by the petitioner in view of the policy instructions which had been issued by the State of Haryana and which according to the petitioner entitled him for the claim for regularisation. Another CWP No.3224 of 1992 was also filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on the premise that the petitioner had been appointed afresh in the year 1991 which order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, pursuant to the SLP filed in. Piara Singh v State of Haryana, which was pending before the Supreme Court, the respondent State of Haryana formulated another policy instructions of 1987 on the strength of which a statement was made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which contemplated that a person who has completed two years of service as on 30.9.1988 would be entitled to regularisation. The petitioner contends that her appointment was made in 1985 and her continuation in service till February 1988 cannot be questioned in view of the statement which was made by the learned counsel appearing for the State. This implies that prior to September 1988 the petitioner had completed 2 years of service and was thus entitled to regularisation. The petitioner's service was then regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1990 but a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in 2010 asking her to explain why the mistake committed earlier by conferring a date of regularisation upon the petitioner be not rectified since it was an error committed by the respondents. Subsequent to the show cause notice and upon consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14.3.2011 has been passed. After tracing the series of writ petitions which the petitioner preferred and C.W.P.No.5623 of 2011 (O&M) -3- the orders passed therein and considering the impact of the said orders, the impugned order has been passed by which the services of the petitioner which were regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1990 was withdrawn vide letter dated 22.1.1998 in view of the fact that actual date of joining of the petitioner was 23.1.1998 and it was clearly held that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the instructions dated 28.2.1991. The ostensible reason for declining the prayer of the petitioner was that she was not in service on 31.12.1990 which was the date envisaged in the instructions dated 28.2.1991. Her actual date of appointment being 23.1.1998 the benefit of regularisation cannot be granted to her with effect from 31.12.1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the instructions Annexure P-5 the petitioner having completed 2 years of service in 1988 was entitled to the benefit of the said instructions and consequent regularisation as per the aforestated policy. There are two impediments in the way of the petitioner. One, that the policy instructions Annexure P-5 also visualised that a person who has completed 2 years of service as on 30.9.1988 should be considered for regularisation. Such was not the situation in the case of the petitioner as concededly and admittedly the petitioner's services were terminated in February 1988. The second impediment in the way of the petitioner is the order passed in CWP No.3224 of 1992 in which the Division Bench of this Court while considering the prayer made by the petitioner regarding the benefit of regularisation concluded that the petitioner had been appointed afresh on 13.5.1991 and, therefore, was not covered within the ambit of the instructions C.W.P.No.5623 of 2011 (O&M) -4- which contemplated that a person who has completed 2 years of service as on 31.12.1990 was to be regularised. This order of dismissal of the service of the petitioner was upheld by the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and the prayer of the petitioner which is specific and based on instructions dated 28.3.1997 cannot be accepted on account of the fact that she was not in service on 30.9.1988. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 30.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss