Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.03.2011 Sushma Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for respondent No. 3. RANJIT SINGH J. This is a case of unfortunate widow, who not only lost the bread earner but is struggling for her survival and livelihood ever since the date of death of her husband. Lalit Kumar, husband of the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer of Municipal Committee, Pehowa on 03.12.1992. His name was reflected in the seniority list issued on 01.01.1997. He was also transferred from the services of one Municipal Committee to another. While serving the State, he unfortunately died on 06.04.2005. The petitioner, accordingly, represented the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground and for release of benefits like death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension etc. The petitioner received communication dated 29.11.2006 asking her to give option. The petitioner responded through Annexure P-3, but she Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 2 did not hear anything. The petitioner then sent another request letter on 19.12.2006. In the meantime, the petitioner also came to learn that her husband was appointed on adhoc basis. The State Government had issued instructions for regularizing the services of the employees, who had completed two years as on 31.01.1996. The case for regularizing the services of late husband of the petitioner had been taken up but no formal order could be passed. When the petitioner made an attempt to seek information in regard to recommendation made for regularizing the services of her husband, she was informed that no record in this regard was available in the department. The Municipal Committee, however, had forwarded the case for ex-facto regularization of services of the husband of the petitioner as he had rendered more than 3 years continuous service against the sanctioned post and was entitled to be regularizaed as per the posting. When the respondents failed to consider the case for regularizing the service of her husband, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7813 of 2007 before this Court. This Court passed the following order on 22.09.2008:- “ It is undisputed that the husband of the petitioner remained employed as Junior Engineer in pursuance to the letter of appointment dated 03.12.1992. He had joined as such on 19.01.1993 in the Municipal Committee Pehowa in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 plus allowances. He continued to remain on adhoc. The claim of his widow for ex-gratia grant or compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that her Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 3 husband has never been regularized and that she cannot claim the benefit of rules known as Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependants of Deceased Government Employees Rules 2005 (for brevity “2005 Rules”). However, in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, an exception has been carved out that after a period of ten years, the services of an employee could be regularized. If that be so, the case of the husband of the petitioner falls in that category, then the petitioner who is widow and has two children may become entitled to the benefit of the 2005 Rules. Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwari, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana requests for a short adjournment to seek instructions in that regard. List for further consideration on 15.10.2008. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned State Counsel under the signatures of the Bench Secretary attached to this court.” Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P-9 has now been passed rejecting the claim for regularization. The petitioner has again filed the present writ petition to challenge the order, Annexure P-9. It is seen that the prayer of the petitioner for regularizing the services of her husband has primarily been declined on the ground that policy of regularization has been declared unconstitutional by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 4 of Karnataka versus Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. It is, accordingly, stated that the policy issued regarding regularization has been withdrawn. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner, who had worked for more than 10 years on a duly sanctioned post cannot be regularized. There is no regularization policy now available and as such it is stated that the services of the late husband of the petitioner cannot be regularized. Reply has been filed in response to the present writ petition to deny the claim made in the petition. I find that the case of the petitioner has not been dealt with in fair manner. Late husband of the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis on 03.12.1992. He continuously served the State till the date of his death in the year 2005. During all this time he was fully entitled to be considered for regularization. For some reason or other, as disclosed in Annexure P-9, his case for regularization could not be considered. These were facts, which were noticed by this Court, while passing earlier order passed on 22.09.2010. The Court had then directed the respondents to consider if the services of the late husband of the petitioner could be regularized as he had served the department for over 10 years. The State was specifically directed to keep in mind the exception carved out in Uma Devi's case (supra). Despite clear directions, the State has not taken care to deal with the issue in a fair and proper manner. It is not in dispute that the late husband of the petitioner had rendered service from 1992 to 2005. Thus, he had served for nearly 13 years. No doubt, the instructions regarding the regularization of services may have been withdrawn, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 5 Devi's case (supra) but still an exception has been carved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as is noticed in para 53 of the judgment. It is observed that there may be cases where irregular appointments of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and employee continued to work for 10 years or more but without the intervention of court or tribunal. As per the directions, the question of regularization of service of such employee may have to be considered by law in the light of principal by the Court in the cases referred to in the light of this judgment. Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities were required to take steps to regularize as one-time measure the service of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under the covers of the courts or Tribunals. The case of the late husband of the petitioner would require consideration in the light of these observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). It is because of some inaction on the part of the Municipal Committee or to an extent on the part of the late husband of the petitioner that his case could not be properly taken up for consideration. The case for regularization of the services of the husband of the petitioner, thus, would require consideration, in view of the policy then existing at the time of his death. It would not be fair to consider the case of regularization of the husband of the petitioner in accordance with the policy, which has been issued subsequent to his death. Even by way of compassion, it would be appropriate to direct the State to consider the case of the late husband of the petitioner for regularization in view of the policies existing prior to his Civil Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2009 6 death and is applicable when his case was due. If the services of the late husband of the petitioner can be regularized in accordance with the then existing policies, it would be fair to grant that concession now, as the petitioner, is striving hard for her livelihood. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Directions are hereby issued to the respondents to consider the case of the late husband of the petitioner for regularization by taking into consideration the policies as were existing prior to his death. If the case for regularization of the services of the late husband of the petitioner is made out, necessary order in this regard be passed and communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents would take up the case for appointment of the petitioner or for release of assistance to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. March 08, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE