C.W.P. No.6961 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.6961 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 17, 2009 Vikram Singh .....PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vivek Lamba, A.A.G.,Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar (respondent No.3) and Municipal Council, Hansi (respondent No.4) to take action in accordance with the instructions dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P11) issued by the Haryana Government and to absorb the petitioner on the post of Octroi Clerk in pursuance to the letter dated 2.5.2006 (Annexure P-12). It is the case of the petitioner that when the employees of Municipal Committees in Haryana went on strike, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Octroi Clerk by SDM, Hansi and was directed to join his duties in Municipal Council, Hansi on 17.12.1996. It is further the case of the petitioner that no appointment letter was issued to him but the C.W.P. No.6961 of 2007 -2- remuneration was fixed at D.C. rates. Accordingly, the petitioner had joined his duties. It has been alleged that a decision was taken by the Government on 19.12.1996 that if the striking employees do not return to their work till 20.12.1996, the local bodies may appoint the substitute from the open market. It is further the case of the petitioner that no employee of Municipal Committee, Hansi had returned to work on 20.12.1996 and the petitioner had continued to perform his duties at the check post. It has been alleged that contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Government, the services of the petitioner were terminated. It has been further alleged that realizing the difficulties of the employees who had worked during the strike period, like the petitioner, the Government had issued instructions dated 13.5.1997 for adjustment of the employees, who worked during the strike period. It is the case of the petitioner that despite many representations having been made, he was not absorbed by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.18386 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.12.1998 in which a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar to decide the representations of the petitioner. The representations of the petitioner were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar vide order dated 12.2.1999 while holding that he was not appointed during strike. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 2.12.1998, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing another petition, i.e., CWP No.4505 of 1999 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated April 01, 1999 while observing that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the instructions of the Government dated 13.5.1997. C.W.P. No.6961 of 2007 -3- It is further the case of the petitioner that on 21.3.2006, Haryana Government had issued fresh instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State, calling upon them to give the details of the employees who had worked during the strike period in the Municipal Committees. In pursuance of the said instructions, respondent No.4 submitted a detailed list to the office of respondent No.3 in which the name of the petitioner finds mentioned as an employee who had worked during the strike period. In spite of the said fact, when the petitioner was not absorbed in Municipal Committee, he filed the instant writ petition. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that since the petitioner has already exhausted the legal remedy as his earlier petition was dismissed, the instant petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed on this score. As per Government instructions dated 13.5.1997 and 24.4.2001, the persons who had worked during the entire strike period, i.e. 16.12.1996 to 4.3.1997, and who were duly appointed by the competent authority, were to be re-appointed or re- adjusted on the vacant posts only. Since the petitioner was not appointed by the competent authority and had not worked for the entire period of strike in Municipal Committee, Hansi, therefore, his claim of re-adjustment was rejected and the said order was upheld by this Court. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petitioner was neither appointed as Octroi Clerk in the Municipal Committee by the competent authority nor any appointment letter was issued. Earlier the claim of the petitioner for re-adjustment was rejected. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court in CWP No.18386 of 1998 vide order dated C.W.P. No.6961 of 2007 -4- 2.12.1998, the representations filed by the petitioner for his re-adjustment in Municipality were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar on 12.2.1999. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing another writ petition. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court on 1.4.1999 while observing that the case of the petitioner is not covered by government instructions dated 13.5.1997. After a lapse of eight years, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition in the year 2007. The contention of the petitioner that other similar situated employees, who had worked during the strike period, like the petitioner, were appointed in the Municipal Committees, cannot be accepted as it does not confer any legal right upon the petitioner to claim re-adjustment/re-appointment in the absence of any appointment letter issued in his favour by the competent authority. It is the case of the respondents that the persons who were appointed by the competent authority during the strike period and who actually had worked during the strike period, have been either retained in service or re- appointed/re-adjusted. The petitioner was neither appointed under any order of the competent authority nor he worked during the entire period of strike. Even as per Policy dated 24.4.2001 issued by the Government, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed against the vacant posts of Octroi Clerks as he had not worked during whole strike period. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is putting his claim only on the basis of the letter dated 21.3.2006 written by the Haryana Government to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State, calling upon them to give the details of the employees who had worked during the strike period. It has been stated that in the list supplied by respondent No.4, the name of the petitioner finds C.W.P. No.6961 of 2007 -5- mentioned as an employee, who had worked during the strike period. In my opinion, in the absence of the appointment letter issued by the competent authority, no right accrues to the petitioner to claim absorption in the Municipality, particularly when the writ petition (CWP No.4305 of 1999) filed by him was dismissed by this Court on 1.4.1999. Further, on 19.2.2007, the State Government had issued policy letter to all the Municipalities in the State in supersession of letter/instructions dated 21.3.2006, thereby conveying its decision not to re-adjust the employees who had worked in the Municipalities during the strike. The said policy decision has been upheld by this Court in CWP No.5280 of 2006 (Narender Kumar Versus The Municipal Council, Ambala City and others) decided on 11.03.2008, and rejected the claim of appointment made under the previous policy. Moreover, the petition suffers from delay and laches. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. November 17, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE