IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9113 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.09.2011 Joginder Pal, Work Charge Store Mate, Office of the SDO, D/Store, HSEB, Rewari (Haryana). ...Petitioner versus Haryana State Electricity Board, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, District Ambala, through its Secretary, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Ms. Vibha, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner seeks for a direction against respondent- Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) for issue an order of confirmation pursuant to the representation said to have been made on 24.02.1989 (Annexure P-1) and further directing the Controller of Stores of HSEB where he was working for a further promotion as Store Munshi/Lower Division Clerk. The basis of claim by the petitioner is that he had been working as daily wager without any break from 04.08.1980 to 18.01.1981 in the office of Xen, TFD, HSEB, Nangal and later as a Work Charged Store Mate in the same office at Nangal between 19.01.1981 to 31.07.1984 and later in the same capacity as a Work Charged Store Mate in the office Civil Writ Petition No.9113 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - of Xen, Controller of Stores, Dhulkote from 01.08.1984 till the date of the filing of the representation on 24.02.1989. The petitioner would place his reliance on a communication from the Controller of Stores, HSEB to his Section head calling for service particulars of matriculates, who were work charged employees and who had been on roll on 31.10.1979 and who had completed 5 years of service. 2. It is not very clear as to how the petitioner would have any benefit with reference to the above communication, for, it seeks to elicit information of such of those persons, who had been on roll on 31.10.1979 and who had minimum continuous service of 5 years. The petitioner definitely was not on the rolls on 31.10.1979, but however, fulfilled the second requirement only partially in that he was a work charged employee at Nangal from 1981 to 1984, but if we must look for the 5 years' experience at Dhulkote, it was still a period less than 5 years from 01.08.1984 to 24.02.1989. The petitioner would refer to the representation from the trade union complaining of unfair labour practices as prevailing in the office of Xen Central Store, Dhulkote, where persons had been merely kept on daily wages without appropriate salary. The writ petition, therefore, also contains a prayer to the 3rd respondent, who is the Labour Officer that he should enforce the labour laws. 3. In response to all these contentions, the Electricity Board through its officers described as respondents 1 and 2 would admit to the petitioner as being engaged as a daily wage worker on 04.08.1980 and later appointed on adhoc basis on 19.01.1981 for a period of 3 months. His status was converted as Work Charged Store Mate on 19.12.1984. The respondents would state that the office of the Xen, Controller of Stores, Civil Writ Petition No.9113 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - Dhulkote, had forwarded to the 2nd respondent, namely, the Controller of Stores, HSEB, that rejected the claim of the petitioner for confirmation since the same had not matured keeping in view the fact that the employees senior to the petitioner were awaiting confirmation and promotion. The said communication appears to have been made on 08.09.1989, that no action was possible since his own turn had not matured as several number of workers were still awaiting their turn for regularization and promotion. The respondent would bring to the attention of the Court that the 1st respondent Board had constituted a Screening Committee to screen work charged/daily wage employees for their absorption against vacant regular posts and the proceedings have also been annexed as R-4 to show that the respondent was not lax in its way of addressing the grievances of daily wagers and work charged employees, who were clamoring for regularization. The respondent would refute the petitioner's allegation that the Board was regularizing the services of all persons, who had completed 13 months of service. It would explain that such a process was undertaken only for probationers who were employed with such condition that on the successful completion of probation if the work and conduct had been good they would be appointed on a regular basis. This did not apply to all classes of persons such as work charged employees. 4. If the case were to be only considered on the basis of the directions issued by the Controller of Stores on 23.01.1981, I have already explained as to how the petitioner does not fulfill the norms for inclusion of his name in the list for consideration for regularization. The petitioner does not provide any particular details about the present status. Perhaps over a period of time, when any scheme relating to regularization was undertaken, Civil Writ Petition No.9113 of 1989 (O&M) - 4 - the petitioner might have been confirmed, but on the cause of action disclosed, there is no way that the petitioner could have any relief before this Court. The petitioner will have independent remedy if there is any breach of Article 14 of the Constitution by pointing out to any other person similarly placed, who had been regularized in terms of the Recruitment Rules. The mere length of service itself will be no justification for directing regularization as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and another Versus Uma Devi-2006(4) SCC 1. 5. If there is a scheme for regularization under any of the Recruitment Rules or if it had been undertaken as one time measure pursuant to the direction in Uma Devi's case referred to above, the writ petitioner may pursue the same. It is not possible to accommodate the the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 13.09.2011 sanjeev