CWP No. 14111 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14111 of 2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: May18, 2009 Pardeep Kumar and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Additional AG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioners joined as Conductors on contractual basis w.e.f. 1.5.93 after their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. By a notification dated 28.7.94 Annexure R-1 the following decision was notified:- “As you are aware that a large number of drivers/Conductors are working in Haryana Roadways on contractual basis at the fixed salary of Rs. 1800/- and Rs.1400/- p.m. respectively. For some time, it has been under the consideration of the department to regularise the services of these drivers/conductors. An agreement CWP No. 14111 of 2001 2 in this respect has also been arrived at between the Transport Department and recognised Union of Haryana Roadways Workers on 16.6.94. As per agreement,the services of drivers/conductors who complete two years service on contractual basis,should be regularised against vacancy. You are, therefore, requested to regularise the services of all such drivers/conductors who have completed two years of their service against the vacancies available under the prescribed norm of 1.4 persons per vehicle from the date of availability of vacancy and keeping in view the seniority of the eligible persons.” The claim of the petitioners is that their services have been regularised w.e.f. 8.1.98 but in fact their services should have been regularised w.e.f. 1.5.95. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in RSA No. 3213 of 2005 decided on 7.3.2006, Haryana State v. Ram Chander wherein this Court held as follows:- “A perusal of the aforesaid instructions clearly shows that as per the agreement between the department and the employees union, if had been decided to regularise the services of all such drivers/conductors who had competed two years of service against vacancies available under the prescribed norms. In these circumstances, the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel is without any justification and is not borne out from the perusal of the instructions. The other argument raised by the learned counsel, placing reliance on Ex.D3 is also without any justification, inasmuch as,the said clarification was issued on June 23, 1997 could not have operated against the aforesaid vested rights of the plaintiffs.” CWP No. 14111 of 2001 3 Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that in fact the policy of 28.7.94 was withdrawn by the policy of 17.11.95. In my opinion the subsequent withdrawal of the policy would not have the effect of obliterating the petitioners' rights as has been held in the above mentioned RSA. In the writ petition there is a categoric averment that on 1.5.95 vacancies were available against which the services of the petitioners could have been regularised. This fact has not been denied. Consequently this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of regularisation of services of the petitioners as on 1.5.95. The petitioners shall also be entitled to consequential benefits. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 18, 2009 sunita