CWP No.17286 of 1998 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 28.04.2010 Dilbagh Singh deceased represented by legal representatives .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has expired on 22.12.2005 and his legal representatives were ordered to be impleaded as party-petitioners vide order dated 10.03.2006 passed in C.M. No.4265 of 2006. In May, 1985 the petitioner was appointed as PR Chowkidar on daily wages. His services were terminated on 30.11.1987. A reference was filed by the petitioner in the Labour Court which was subsequently withdrawn. On 16.04.1990, the petitioner was taken back in service and since then he is continuing as such. In the year 1996 the respondent-State framed a policy to regularise the services of the employees who had completed five years service. The condition of five years service was curtailed to three years vide another policy decision taken by the respondent on 18.3.1996. In the year 1998, the petitioner filed writ petition in this Court seeking regularisation wherein a direction was issued to consider the CWP No.17286 of 1998 -2- claim of the petitioner which has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 2.7.1998 (Annexure P-7). It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. The stand of the respondents as taken in the written statement is that the case of the petitioner is not covered under the policy decisions taken in the year 1996. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Kavita Gandhi Vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.12367 of 1997) decided on30.09.1997 wherein the following observations/directions have been issued:- “In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Jagdish Lal and others (supra) it is abundantly clear that in order to become eligible for consideration for regularisation of the service under a particular notification of the state Government the prescribed years of completed service with reference to the cut-off dated mentioned in the notification applies to such employees also who have completed those number of years of service prior to the cut off date and not necessarily, immediately preceding the said date. In other words, if the employee has completed with reference to the notification dated 7.3.1996/18.3.1996, three years of completed service and was in service on cut-off date i.e. CWP No.17286 of 1998 -3- 31.1.1996 he would become entitled for regularisation of service provided he fulfilled the other conditions mentioned in the notification. It is not necessary that the period of three years should be taken immediately preceding the cut-off dated i.e. 31.1.1996. If the case of the petitioner is examined from this angel, she rendered more than three years completed service without any break prior to 31.1.1996 and she was in service on the said date. The break of 48 days in service of the petitioner in the year 1994 would, thus, be not relevant to be considered for regularisation of her service. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-4 is quashed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.” The aforesaid observations/directions are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 02.07.1998 (Annexure P-7) is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in accordance with rules. Since the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the CWP No.17286 of 1998 -4- present writ petition, consequential benefits, be released to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. 28.04.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO