CWP No.14971 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14971 of 2003 Date of decision : 06-09-2010 Biram Pal .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Petitioner seeks regularisation of service in accordance with policy dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-2) with consequential benefits. He also seeks quashing of order dated 26.08.2003 (Annexure P-9) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper against the regular sanctioned post. This fact has not been disputed by counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi (3) and others, 2006 SCC (L&S) 753. Relevant para 53 of the judgment reads as under:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal CWP No.14971 of 2003 -2- appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is continuing in service since 1.11.1994. Counsel also submits that no stay was granted by this Court and the petitioner is on the rolls of respondent No.3 from last 16 years. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding regularization in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble the CWP No.14971 of 2003 -3- Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). The needful shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 06-09-2010 JUDGE manju