CWP No.2204 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2204 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010 **** Prem Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. …Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? **** Present: Mr. RK Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. IS Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This case is a classic example of exploitation of the petitioners at the hands of the State authorities. (2). Briefly stated, the petitioners joined the respondent- Punjab Mandi Board on work-charged basis as Chowkidars w.e.f. 23rd February, 1982 and 1st September, 1984, respectively. While working as such they were further promoted as Supervisors (Class III post) w.e.f. 05.11.1990 and 13.01.1993 and have now retired from service on attaining their age of superannuation on 31st March, 2010 and 28th February, 2010, respectively. Despite dedicating the CWP No.2204 of 2010.doc - 2 – better part of their lines in the services of the respondent-Board, the status of ‘regular employees’ remained a mirage for the petitioners who have been retired as ‘work-charged’ employees only. The petitioners, have as a necessary fallout, not been granted any pension or other retiral dues admissible to a regular employee. The policy of pick and choose is also writ large by the fact that one Anil Sharma and Mohan Singh who too had joined as Class III employees on work-charged basis w.e.f. 01.07.1982 and 14.09.1994 and were juniors to one or the other petitioner, were brought on regular establishment w.e.f. 05.04.1990. The services of the petitioners have not been regularized on the context that their cases have been “forwarded/recommended” to the State Government for necessary appropriate approval. (3). Suffice it to notice here that during this long tenure several Government Policies/Circulars have been issued for regularization of services of the ad hoc/work-charged/contract/daily-wage employees but eluding the petitioners from their benefit for no tangible reasons. (4). Ordinarily, a writ Court would not issue directions for regularization of the services of an employee as CWP No.2204 of 2010.doc - 3 – the authorities can be directed to consider such claim in accordance with policy/criteria, if any. However, the fact that the petitioners served the respondents for more than 28 or 26 years to the entire satisfaction of the authorities speaking in volume about their suitability and dedication to the duties, the petitioners therefore, can no more be left at the mercy of the bureaucratic labyrinth. (5). The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the petitioners are deemed to be regular employees and the respondents are directed to treat them as regular employees for all intents and purposes w.e.f. 05.04.1990 i.e. with effect from the date when their juniors (Anil Sharma and Mohan Singh) were brought on the regular establishment. The respondents are further directed to take into account the services rendered by the petitioners w.e.f. 23.02.1982 and 01.09.1984, respectively till the date of their regularization i.e. w.e.f. 05.04.1990 as ‘qualifying service’ for the purposes of pension and retiral benefits in the light of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab [1998(2) PLR 223 (FB)]. (6). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of CWP No.2204 of 2010.doc - 4 – this order. It is made clear that want of any approval or non-availability of regular posts shall be a valid pretext and the petitioners shall be treated to have retired as regular employees. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 14.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE