HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20045 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.09.2011 **** Harbhajan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . 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. JS Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent- Department on daily wages on 01.07.1991. His services were terminated w.e.f. 17.11.1993. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was answered in his favour by the Labour Court, Patiala vide an Award dated 09.10.2002, the relevant part whereof reads as follows:- “It cannot be said that the workman remained without a job. So, it must be held that the workman remained gainfully employed since the time of his termination of his employment. In view of my observation, I accordingly answer the reference in favour of the workman, who is ordered to be reinstated with CWP No.20045 of 2008.doc - 2 – continuity of service but without back wages. He is further directed to report for duty within 30 days of the publication of the award. No order as to cost.” (2). It may be seen that the petitioner was reinstated in service “with continuity of service” though backwages were denied to him. The petitioner is thus deemed to be continuing as daily-wage driver w.e.f. 1.7.1991. The petitioner has nevertheless been denied regularization of services vide the impugned order dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P9) for the following reasons:- “As per the guidelines laid down para 2(i) of these instructions, an employee should have worked for not less than 10(ten) years as on 10.4.2006 without the intervention of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals against duly sanctioned posts. However, in the present case, the petitioner had worked only for 5 years, 5 months and 24 days as on 10.04.2006 whereas he was required to have worked for not less than 10 years as on the cut off date i.e. 10.04.2006. Apart from this the petitioner had not worked on any sanctioned posts as he was a daily wager whereas, having worked on a sanctioned post was a pre- condition for regularisation. Further, in the present case there was an intervention of Labour Court whereas there had to be no intervention of Courts or 2 CWP No.20045 of 2008.doc - 3 – Tribunals according to the guidelines. Still further, the petitioner is involved in a controversy regarding the validity of his driving licencse No.98309/88. In his report No.5110 dated 2.1.2004, the concerned District Transport Officer, Patiala has reported that the petitioner is not entitled to drive Govt. vehicles as his license is valid only for private sector/car. Hence, in view of the reasons explained above, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of his service.” (3). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit maintaining that the petitioner’s claim has been rightly turned down vide the impugned order dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P9). (4). It may be seen that the first reason assigned by the respondents is totally contrary to the record. The service period of the petitioner has been counted after his reinstatement in the year 2002 ignoring the daily-wages service rendered w.e.f. 01.07.1991. The impugned order thus runs contrary to the record as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court. (5). So far as the second reason is concerned, it is for the respondents to explain as to how the petitioner remained employed as Driver for years if there was no sanctioned post. The officers who employed the petitioner have not 3 CWP No.20045 of 2008.doc - 4 – been subjected to any disciplinary action. Similarly the written statement nowhere discloses as to whether any other driver was meanwhile appointed on daily wage/ad hoc/contract basis, and if so why, the petitioner despite his longer service, was not adjusted against such sanctioned post. The third reasoning also is apparently misleading as the driving license of the petitioner, if was valid for driving a car, cannot be ‘invalid’ for ‘driving a Government vehicle’ unless it is a heavy vehicle. The impugned order unfortunately does not divulge the complete information. (6). The petitioner’s claim thus for regularization of service in terms of the Government policy dated 23.01.2011 (Annexure P15) deserves to be re-considered if he satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed therein on the deeming fiction that he has been continuously working as a daily wager w.e.f. 01.07.1991. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P9) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re- consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services in the light of the Government policies dated 15.12.2006 and 23.01.2001 (Annexure P5 & P15, respectively) and if found entitled/eligible, to regularize his 4 CWP No.20045 of 2008.doc - 5 – services within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 19.09.2011 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) Judge 5