C.W.P No. 11236 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 11236 of 2008 Date of decision : April 02, 2009 Kamala Devi, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 1.7.1983. Her services were terminated on 1.8.1994. She sought a reference and ultimately by award dated 4.12.2003, the reference was allowed and it was held that she was entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and 1/3rd back-wages. Admittedly, this award has been upheld right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The grouse of the petitioner is that though she has been C.W.P No. 11236 of 2008 ::2:: permitted to join her service, yet neither has she been paid the back wages nor her case considered for regularisation. As regards back wages, counsel for the respondents states that the same have been paid, vide demand draft dated 5.11.2007. As regards regularization, however, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for the same, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs Uma Devi and others, 2006(2) SCT 462. In my opinion, the petitioner would not be hit by the above mentioned decision. Had the award been implemented immediately in December 2003, the petitioner's case would have been considered for regularization. The fact that continuity of service had been granted to the petitioner would mean that she has been in service for the past 26 years. In Uma Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa (supra), R.N.Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N.Nagarajan (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the C.W.P No. 11236 of 2008 ::3:: light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers, are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” Counsel for the respondents has argued that the initial appointment of the petitioner cannot be held to be regular. However, he has not been able to deny that even till today, no policy has been laid down for the recruitment of daily wagers which envisages public notice of the vacancy. Thus, it cannot be held that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal. The petitioner is, thus, entitled to the benefit of the above quoted enunciation of law. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as on C.W.P No. 11236 of 2008 ::4:: 4.12.2003 viz. the date of the original award in favour of the petitioner. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 02, 2009. JUDGE `kk'