IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5884 of 2010 & CWP. No. 10778 of 2000 Date of Decision: 30.4.2010. Mukesh Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) C.M. No. 5884 of 2010 Notice of the C.M. Application. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties main case is taken up on the board. Application is disposed of. CWP No. 10778 of 2000 The petitioner initially joined the department as Vehicle Driver on 28.3.1989. His initial appointment was on daily wages. Services of the petitioner were, however, dispensed with in August, 1994. Petitioner raised industrial dispute and was later taken back in service in August, 1996. His services were regularized w.e.f. 9.11.1994 on 1.2.1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the post of Driver is a Group-C post, however, petitioner has been placed in the pay scale of Group D i.e. Rs. 2550-3200 whereas the pay scale of Driver is Rs. 5000-7850. CWP. No. 10778 of 2000 -2- It is not in dispute that the controversy in the present petition is squarely covered by a judgement of the Division Bench of this Court dated 4.8.1998 rendered in CWP No. 17618 of 1997 and other connected matters. The relevant observations are as under:- “ 6. It would be seen from the reading of the instructions dated 11.5.1994 that a daily wager who has worked as such for 5 years against a class III post has to be regularized in Class III post subject as availability of posts in case the post failing which the person may be regularized in Group 'D' post i.e. Class IV post. Both in Sunita Dua's and Suresh Kumar's case (supra), the petitioners were working as Typists on daily wages which is a Class III post. Since they had completed 5 years of service as such it was held that the petitioner was wrongly or inadvertently regularized earlier in class III post. It has not been spelled out as to what was inadvertence. It is not the case of the respondent that no class III post was available or the Finance Department when asked refused to create any post. Consequently, we find that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the regularization of the petitioners against class III post is against the instructions. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition, quash the order of withdrawal of regularization dated 13.11.1997 Annexure P-6 qua petitioner no.1 and similar orders passed qua the other petitioner." In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be placed in the pay scale of Driver with effect from the date of his regularization. However, arrears shall be restricted to 38 months preceding the filing of this petition. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 30.4.2010. lucky