C.W.P.No.11789 of 1997(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11789 of 1997(O&M) Date of decision : 12.12.2011 Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Ms. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana None for respondent no.3 MAHESH GROVER, J. The positive case of the petitioners is that they are working with the Municipal Corporation – respondent no. 3 for a period of 5 years when they approached this Court. In para 5 of the petition they have categorically stated that the Deputy Commissioner directed that the services of the petitioners be regularized by the Municipal Corporation as is evident from Annexure P-1. The Corporation in its reply to para 5 has not denied this averment and has stated that 13 posts of Sawai Karamcharis were sanctioned on 11.10.1996 and the Municipal Corporation was directed to proceed with the regularization of Sawai Karamcharis subject to the furnishing requisite documents by the petitioners as demanded vide Annexure P-5 but surprisingly no action regarding regularization has been taken by the respondents. C.W.P.No.11789 of 1997(O&M) 2 An attempt has been made by the respondents to say that the petitioners went on strike on 15.12.1996 to 5.3.1997 and thus there was no question of regularizing their services. There is no representation from the Municipal Corporation even though the matter was shown in the warning list and was taken up for hearing on 9.12.2011 and was adjourned to 12.12.2011. I have considered the contentions which have been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that once the respondents had taken a decision to regularize the services of the petitioners, the necessary order to that effect should have followed and even if the respondents wanted to decline the benefit of regularization on the ground that the petitioners had participated in the strike, even then the requisite order declining such a prayer should have been passed but under no circumstances, the petitioners can be denied the benefit of an order by either accepting the prayer or negating it and that too for an inordinately long period. It is to be noticed that the instant petition has been pending in this Court since 1997 and yet no order is evident on record. This Court views this action of the respondent no.3 - Municipal Corporation with extreme seriousness as no decision can be kept in abeyance for such a long time. Even in the reply which has been filed to the petition except for revealing their stand, no order either beneficial or either detrimental to the petitioners has been passed so as to enable this Court to subject such an order to judicial scrutiny. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 - Municipal Corporation to pass a speaking order within a C.W.P.No.11789 of 1997(O&M) 3 period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and while doing so they will associate the petitioners with the process and after hearing them, record reasons in support of their decision. It is further directed that while passing such an order, the respondents shall take into consideration specially the fact whether the petitioners are in service ever since or not and if they are in service they will derive the benefits of observations made by this Court in CWP no.2204 of 2010 decided on 14.10.2010, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- “4. Ordinarily, a writ Court would not issue directions for regularization of the services of an employee as the authorities can be directed to consider such claim in accordance with policy/criteria, if any. However, the fact that the petitioners served the respondents for more than 28 or 26 years to the entire satisfaction of the authorities speaking in volume about their suitability and dedication to the duties, the petitioners therefore, can no more be left at the mercy of the bureaucratic labyrinth. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the petitioners are deemed to be regular employees and the respondents are directed to treat them as regular employees for all intents and purposes w.e.f. 05.04.1990 i.e. with effect from the date when their juniors (Anil Sharma and Mohan Singh) were brought on the regular establishment. The respondents are further directed to take into account the services rendered by the petitioners w.e.f. 23.02.1982 and 01.09.1984, respectively till the date of their regularization i.e. w.e.f. 05.04.1990 as C.W.P.No.11789 of 1997(O&M) 4 ‘qualifying service’ for the purposes of pension and retiral benefits in the light of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab [1998(2) PLR 223 (FB)].” For the laxity shown by the respondents in not passing an appropriate order they are burdened with costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioners equally. Disposed of. December 12, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge