IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18623 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 13, 2010. Kanta Rani .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab for respondent nos.1 to 3. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. For the reasons that the Panchayat Samiti, Dina Nagar has already passed resolutions in favour of the petitioner, there is no need to issue any notice to respondent No.4 nor there is any counter reply from the respondents is needed at this stage. The petitioner is working as a peon and is presently posted in the office of the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dina Nagar, District Gurdaspur. She was initially appointed as a part-time Peon-cum-Sweeper C.W.P.No .18623 of 2010 2 on 1.10.1984 but is said to have been performing the duties for whole time since then. It was way back on 28.4.1997 that the Panchayat Samiti passed a resolution for regularization of services of the petitioner, followed by an un-ending long correspondence between the Panchayat Samiti and the State Government, a part of which is placed on record as Annexures P-2 to P-5. Thereafter, the State of Punjab took the Policy decision dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure P-8) for regularization of services of the adhoc/work-charged/daily wagers like the petitioner but despite that policy decision, the services of the petitioner have not been regularized so far. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is still being paid the wages as per the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has made several representations to the authorities, followed by a legal notice dated 17.2.2010 (Annexure P-9). However, it is alleged that instead of regularizing the services, her wages have been reduced from daily wager to a part-time wager. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for regularization of her services in the light of the resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samiti-respondent No.4 from time to time. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering various policy decisions/Instructions of the State Government as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has not been dealt with by the respondents in a fair and just manner. Be that as it may, no final opinion is C.W.P.No .18623 of 2010 3 expressed at this stage, rather, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services, if so required, after ascertaining the fact that she is working as whole time employee, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE