Civil Writ Petition No. 12702 of 1992 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 6.4.2010 Brij Lal .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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: Shri Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming directions to the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the services of State of Haryana. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Mali- cum-Chowkidar in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Kaithal on 29.2.1980 on the basis of the list forwarded by the office of District Employment Exchange, Kaithal, to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary, which could be terminated at any time without giving any notice. Subsequently, the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti sought the services of the petitioner to be provincialised as peon on 13.7.1983. Reference is made to the circular dated 17.12.1990 Civil Writ Petition No. 12702 of 1992 [ 2 ] issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Development and Panchayat Department, to the effect that the services of the employees of the Zila Panchayat Samiti should be provincialised under Section 74 of the Punjab Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961. It is further pointed out that the State of Haryana has absorbed all the other employees of the Panchayat Samiti in the Government service. Therefore, the services of the petitioner deserve to be absorbed. In the written statement, it is, inter-alia, asserted that the Executing Officer, Panchayat Samiti, was not competent to appoint the petitioner as Mali-cum-Chowkidar in the Panchayat Samiti, Kaithal, under the provisions of Punjab Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 and that there is no such sanctioned post in the Panchayat Samiti, Kaithal. Reference is made to the circular dated 7.11.1983 issued by the Joint Secretary, Haryana Government to all the Block Development and Panchayat Officers in the State of Haryana to the effect that if any Chowkidar is appointed in any block, his appointment shall be irregular and illegal as there is no sanctioned post of Chowkidar. If any Chowkidar is already appointed in any block, his services are irregular and should be terminated at once. It is pointed out that in every block there are four posts of peons, which have been sanctioned in which two peons would be from Development side and two from Panchayat side. Out of these four, the junior-most will look after the work of Mali-cum-Chowkidar. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be absorbed in view of the circular issued in the year 1983. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has since died on 21.11.2008. A perusal of the record further shows that on 11.11.1995, ad-interim order staying Civil Writ Petition No. 12702 of 1992 [ 3 ] termination of the petitioner was passed, in the presence of the counsel for the parties. The petitioner has not filed any replication controverting the averments made in the written statement that there is no sanctioned post of Chowkidar. The fact remains that the petitioner was appointed by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on purely temporary basis with the condition that his services could be terminated any time. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce any Rule; Instructions or any other document to the effect that there exists a post of Mali-cum- Chowkidar and that the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti was the competent appointing authority. In view of the said fact coupled with the fact that the petitioner has since died on 21.11.2008, I do not find that any case for absorption of the petitioner as a regular employee under the State Government, is made out. Moreover, such directions would be against the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Uma and others, 2006(4) SCC page 1. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE 6-4-2010 ds