C.W.P. No.646 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.646 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 5.10.2011 Shakuntala PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Nehra, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. This writ petition pertains to the claim of a widow whose husband joined the service of the respondents as a Beldar in June, 1978. Upon his services having been terminated on 31.1.1996, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The said reference was answered in his favour on 7.1.2003. In the same year i.e. on 1.1.2003, the State of Haryana issued a policy regarding the regularization of services of employees who had been working with them for a period of 3 years as on 30.9.2003. The husband of the petitioner pressed his claim for regularisation pursuant to the aforesaid policy, but unfortunately, before his case for regularisation could be processed and finalised, C.W.P. No.646 of 2011 -2- he died on 6.5.2010. The petitioner who is a widow, prayed that she be granted family pension and appointment on compassionate grounds which was declined as the husband of the petitioner had not been regularised in service. A legal notice was served upon the respondents which was also not acceded to. Finally, by virtue of Annexure P-7, the legal notice was decided and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that husband of the petitioner was not on duty from 1989 to 31.8.2003 and since he joined the duty on 31.8.2003 after a lapse of 13 years and since his services had been terminated, he was not entitled to the benefit of the policy, the consequent regularisation and the incidental benefits of family pension etc. The claim of the petitioner thus stands crystalised as follows :- (1) That by virtue of the award of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated 31.1.1996 was set aside and he was held entitled to reinstatement with complete benefits including the continuity of service. (2) As a direct consequence thereof, the services of the petitioner having been directed to continue with effect from the date when they were terminated, the petitioner would be deemed to be in service on 7.1.2003 when the award was passed and the policy having come into existence on 1.10.2003 and the petitioner having availed the benefit of the award, would also be deemed to have been in service on the relevant date i.e. 30.9.2003. The first representation was made on 28.7.2004 by the husband of the petitioner himself and he died on 5.5.2010. The respondents' denial of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that her husband was not in service, and thus not covered under the terms of the policy, has to be examined in view of the afore-stated facts. Undisputedly, the husband of the petitioner had joined the services of the respondents in June, 1978 C.W.P. No.646 of 2011 -3- and pursuant to his termination and the subsequent award in his favour, he joined his services as Beldar again on 1.9.2003. The benefit of the policy has been denied to him on the following two grounds which have been stated in the reply to the petition :- “(a) The Policy dated 7.3.1996 is envisaged like this that the casual and daily rated employees, who have completed five years on 31.1.1996 and were in service on 31.1.1996 shall be regularised provided they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and the break in service in any year is not more than one month at a time. (b) Policy dated 18.3.1996. The Haryana Govt. issued this policy, while amending the above policy dated 7.3.1996 as under :- This matter has further been considered and after careful consideration, it has now been decided to regularize the services of all those work charged/casual/daily rated employees, who have completed three years service on 31.1.1996 and fulfill other conditions laid down in Haryana Govt. instructions dated 7.3.1996.” The stand has further been elaborated with reference to the policy dated 30.9.2009 to say that an incumbent seeking regularisation of services should not have a break in service for more than six months and such a break should not be due to a fault attributable to him and that the husband of the petitioner Balbir Singh according to the respondents, did not fulfill the terms of the policy as he had not come to work from 1989 to 1997. C.W.P. No.646 of 2011 -4- Implicit in the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents is the complete washing out of the effect of the award of the Labour Court which directed continuity of service while setting aside the order of termination. If the services of the husband of the petitioner had been deemed to have been continued by virtue of the award, there was no question of the respondents concluding that he was not in service on the relevant date i.e. 30.9.2003 and that he had had a break in service which dis-entitled him to the benefit of the policy. The respondents have therefore, mis-read the whole situation by not directing themselves appropriately to the award of the Tribunal which granted the continuity of service to the husband of the petitioner by deeming fiction of law and thus, the action of the respondents is held to be contrary to law. Having said this, the writ petition is allowed by holding that the husband of the petitioner was certainly entitled to the benefit of regularisation as the award of the Labour Court conferred upon him the continuity of service which implied that the order of termination was void ab initio and thus, the husband of the petitioner who worked from June, 1978 till 2010 when he died was entitled to regularisation in service. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for taking an appropriate decision in the light of the observations made above and for passing such an order regularizing the services of the husband of the petitioner, the claim for family pension and the other consequential benefits, as prayed for by the petitioner, deciding the same afresh, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (MAHESH GROVER) October 5, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO C.W.P. No.646 of 2011 -5-