IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18682 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.09.2011 Shakti Lal and another ...Petitioners Versus 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. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) This writ petition was filed in the year 2009 but till today no reply has been filed by the respondents despite several opportunities. Learned State Counsel though persistently seeks one more opportunity but I do not find any justification for the same as the last opportunity has already been availed off by the respondents. Accordingly, the defence of the respondents is struck off. The petitioners are working as P.R. Chowkidars in the Department of Food & Supplies, Government of Punjab since the year 1983. Their grievance is against non-regularization of their services, though pursuant to the orders dated 13.05.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14238 of 2003 (Mukhtiar Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others) some of the juniors have already been brought on regular establishment. CWP No. 18682 of 2009 [2] This Court has on several occasions issued directions to the respondents to consider the absorption's of P.R.Chowkidars on regular basis as per their seniority. One of such order was passed on 05.12.2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 16786 of 2001 (Baldev Singh V. State of Punjab) holding as follows:- “Since the petitioner rendered service, may be as daily wager continuously without any break after the year 1985. It was if his service was regular. In Kesar Chand V. State of Punjab and others AIR 1988 (Pb&Hr) 265, it was held that once the services of work charged employees have been regularized, there is no logic to deprive him of the pensionary benefits as are available to other public servants under Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. It was further held by the Full Bench that to deprive a government servant of the pension is not only unjust and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness and therefore, the provisions of Sub Rule (ii) of Rule 3.17 were struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Ours is a welfare state petitioner gave 16 years of his life to the Government and served. It is not expected of the Government that it should leave him in Lurch in old age and deny him the pension and other retiral benefits, which will provide him and his family livelihood in his old age.” Similarly, in Civil Writ Petition No. 15544 of 2007 decided on 17.11.2008 (Dangal Singh V. State of Punjab and others) this Court held as follows:- “ The Division Bench judgment in Rakha Singh's case (supra) was assailed by the State of Punjab in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1295 of 2005 but the same was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.7.2005. CWP No. 18682 of 2009 [3] For the reasons assigned in Rakha Singh's case (supra), which has already attained finality, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 5.3.2007 and 8.5.2007 are hereby quashed and it is directed that no recovery from the petitioner shall be effected and he shall continue to draw the sanctioned pension in accordance with rules. In case pension or retiral benefits have not been released/paid so far to any one of the petitioners, the respondents are directed to release the same forthwith but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” Following the above stated dictum and having regard to the fact that juniors to the petitioners have already been made regular and the averments made by the petitioners to that effect have gone unrebutted, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. the date their juniors who were appointed in the year 1985 have been brought on regular establishment. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including retiral benefits, if they have retired meanwhile from the service. Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. 23.09.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE