Civil Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1989 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1989 Date of Decision: 16.8.2010 Deep Chand Verma (Deceased) through his legal representatives …Petitioner Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner Deep Chand Verma, who had filed the present writ petition, died on 12.3.2004. Thus, the present writ petition is being pursued by his legal representatives. Deep Chand Verma, who was a Post Graduate, was appointed as a Technician in Zoology Department of the respondent-University on 22.8.1983. He continued to work there upto 31.3.1985. Thereafter, from 26.4.1985 he was appointed as a Clerk in the Registration Office till 15.6.1985 on ad hoc basis. Thereafter, on 10.7.1985, he was again appointed as a Clerk in the Examination Branch on daily wage basis. He continued to work on daily wage basis in Election Cell and other branches. His services, on daily Civil Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1989 2 wage basis, were terminated with breaks in service. Finally his services were terminated on 20.12.1988. Since Deep Chand Verma had completed 240 days of his service, so he was paid retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “1947 Act”). The claim of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is that various other persons, who were lateron engaged on daily wage basis, were allowed to continue by the University but he has been terminated from the service. Thus, there was a violation of Section 25G of the 1947 Act. The present writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 10.5.1993 by holding that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh 1992(5) SPJ 1, regularization of the petitioner in service could not be ordered. Aggrieved against the same, Deep Chand Verma had filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 544 of 1993. The LPA Bench, vide order dated 25.9.2001, had observed as under:- “...In view of the above, it may be possible to take the view that the termination of the appellant's service can become an industrial dispute. However, in the facts of this case, we do not think that the appellant can be relegated to the alternative remedy of industrial dispute because what he is seeking to enforce is not only the right flowing from Section 25-G of the 1947 Act, but the right to equality guaranteed to him under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, in its written Civil Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1989 3 statement, the respondent-University has made an attempt to show that none of the persons retained in service was junior to the appellant, but that is an issue on which no finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in the absence of any compelling reasons, we do not find any justification to relegate him to alternative remedy for enforcement of his fundamental right”. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, appearing for the respondent- University has submitted that the persons, whose instances the petitioner has quoted in the writ petition, were required for different purposes. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot equate himself with Computer Operators, Peons or Labourers. It is further submitted that the petitioner was engaged on need basis, for discharge of duties on seasonal basis as the election of the Senate was to be held, therefore, the petitioner was appointed in the Election Cell. When the elections were over, services of the petitioners were terminated. It is further submitted that the persons, who were similarly situated as the petitioner was, were also retrenched by the University. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that his junior was allowed to continue to work in the University, no longer exists, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the University. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the University that the petitioner was not eligible as he was not having a requisite qualification. The submission made by learned counsel for the University could not be controverted in a very forceful manner. Civil Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1989 4 Thus, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 16, 2010 “DK”