CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12096 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 02, 2009 Ved Parkash .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this court seeking direction to the respondents to regularise his services on the post of Conductor on which he was appointed on 4.5.1993. Part of the claim stand satisfied as can be seen from the reply. The respondents have regularised the services of the petitioner on 30.8.2007 w.e.f 4.4.2003. Order in this regard is already on record as Annexure P-5. The petitioner still complains and contends that persons, who were appointed with him on the same terms and conditions vide Annexure CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12096 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: R-5, have been regularised w.e.f the date they were appointed i.e. 4.5.1993 and accordingly the petitioner deserves to be regularised from the same date, the case being similar and identical. The respondents would contend that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable and can not be equated with those persons who were regularised w.e.f. 4.5.1993 as the petitioner in between could not maintain a clean record and his services were even terminated. Besides this, the respondents would also refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006(4) SCC 1 to say that the old cases can not be reopened in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This distinction, as pointed out by the respondents to say that the services of the petitioner can not be regularised w.e.f 4.5.1993, as was done in the case of similarly situated persons, apparently is not justified in view of the background of the facts that would appear from the record. Having been appointed in the year 1993, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 19.7.1999. The petitioner, however, challenged the said termination order by seeking reference before Labour Court. The said reference has been answered in favour of the petitioner and direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service was passed on 11.5.2004. The petitioner had also been allowed 50% of back wages from the date of demand notice. The respondents have not challenged this order and have rather accepted the same. The petitioner, thus, has been reinstated into service. A sum of Rs.60,819/- has been paid as 50% of the back wages. The petitioner, thus, has not only prayed for his regularisation CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12096 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: from 4.5.1993 but has prayed for release of 50% back wages from the date of demand noticed, i.e., 9.5.2000, as per the award of the Labour Court dated 11.5.2004 (Annexure P-2). It appears that 50% of the back wages have been paid to the petitioner from the date of demand notice, i.e., 9.5.2000. It is now to be seen if the prayer for regularisation from the date of appointment of the petitioner is made out or not. The petitioner prays that the persons similarly situated and who were appointed with him have been regularised from the date of appointment and, thus, he can not be ordered to be regularised from some different date. The distinction which is pointed out by the respondents is meaningless in view of the Labour Court award which has become final and as per which, the petitioner has been granted the relief of continuity of service. The effect of this would be that the petitioner, who has similar and identical service, to show as was the case of all others who were appointed with him, can claim to be regularised from the date of appointment like others and this prayer would sound legally fair. The case of the petitioner for regularisation from the date similarly situated persons were so regularized is, thus, made out. The denial of this regularisation by referring to the law laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) would also not be proper as the respondents themselves have already regularised the services of the petitioner and it is only the date of regularisation, which is in issue. Once the respondents have taken a decision to regularise the services of the petitioner, they can not be permitted to rely on this judgment to say that regularisation can not be done from the date of appointment by placing reliance upon the same. The respondents CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12096 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: are, thus, required to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of observations made above. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner from the same date when the persons, similarly situated, were so regularised. There shall be no order as to costs. September 02, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE