IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 18149 of 2007 Date of Decision: 7.7.2010. Hardev Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, A.A.G., Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate with Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent no.4. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was employee of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. He was taken on deputation in the Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) vide order dated 19.4.1996. He was posted as General Manager, Regulatory, PUDA, Mohali in the office of Additional Chief Administrator. Vide a subsequent order dated 19.6.2001 the petitioner was absorbed in the Authority. The Authority vide its policy decision dated 31.8.2001 decided to allot plots to its employees of various categories. One of the condition for allotment of the plot was that the officer/employee should have completed 5 years service up to 31.8.2001. The petitioner also applied for allotment of plot in his capacity as an employee of the department. His application has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.11.2001 CWP. No. 18149 of 2007 -2- (Annexure P-5) on the ground that he has not been found eligible during scrutiny of the application. The amount deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded. The petitioner made representation dated 22.1.2004 as also a subsequent representation claiming allotment of plot as an employee of the Authority. However, these representations/applications have not been responded to by the respondents. This petition has been accordingly filed seeking a direction for setting aside of the rejection order and for a further direction in the nature of Mandamus to allot the plot of 14 marlas to the petitioner in his capacity as an employee of the Authority. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he was not a regular employee of the Authority preceding 5 years from the date of issuance of the policy. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Authority vide order dated 19.4.1996 and he continued to work till the date of his permanent absorption in the Authority vide order dated 19.6.2001. He had, thus, served for a period of more than 5 years in the Authority. The Authority framed a policy for allotment of plots and notified the same on 31.8.2001. Even the cut off date for considering the eligibility was 31.8.2001 as is apparent from para 4 of the scheme (Annexure P-3/T). The requirement under the aforesaid para 4 is that employee who has completed 5 years of service up to 31.8.2001 can make application under the scheme. The expression “employee” has been defined under the regulations framed by the Authority. Regulation 2 (h) reads as CWP. No. 18149 of 2007 -3- under:- “ (h) 'employee' means a person in the whole time employment of the Authority but does not include a person employed on daily wages or on work charged basis.” The definition of 'permanent employee' is also contained in Regulation 2 (k) which reads as under:- “ (k) 'permanent employee' means an employee who has completed his probation period satisfactorily against a regular post.” Admittedly, on the date of the eligibility i.e 31.8.2001 the petitioner was a permanent employee and had completed his period of probation. The contention of the respondent that he was not a regular employee for the last 5 years and is thus, not entitled to the plot meant for the employees of the Authority, has no valid basis. The petitioner had served the Authority for a period of more than 5 years as he was permanently absorbed in the Authority at the time of issuance of the scheme as also the date of eligibility. As a matter of fact, though, the petitioner was initially on deputation in the Authority but he served the Authority as a regular employee and finally absorbed. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be beyond the purview of the employee of the Authority for purposes of scheme. The petitioner being a permanent and regular employee of the Authority as on the date of issuance of scheme and the cut off date prescribed therein, cannot be denied the plot under the scheme on this ground. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. The order of rejection of petitioner's application (Annexure P-5) is hereby CWP. No. 18149 of 2007 -4- set aside. Respondent-Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of plot in accordance with the scheme and pass an appropriate order within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.7.2010. lucky