IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.283 of 1989 Date of decision: 29.04.2010 Sher Singh and others ….Petitioners versus State Farms Corporation of India Limited and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. G.C.Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate, General, Punjab. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The writ petitioners seek for regularization of service in the respondent establishment. It is an admitted fact that after the filing of the writ petition, the 1st petitioner and the 3rd petitioner have since retired or have taken voluntary retirement. The case survives for consideration only for petitioners 2 and 4. 2. The scheme for regularization which was floated by the State Farms Corporation of India provides for regularization for 7% of the employees on the rolls if they fulfill certain qualifications. This 7% was subsequently raised to 10%. It is, however, admitted even by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners 2 and 4 do not have the Civil Writ Petition No.283 of 1989 - 2 - requisite qualification for consideration for regularization in terms of the scheme provided for regularization dated 11.08.1988 (Annexure P-1). 3. The only other ground on which the petitioners could obtain treatment to a different status is through a Government of India official memorandum dated 10.09.1993 that provides guidelines for treating daily wage workers to a higher status as casual labourers with certain privileges of leave on a scope for regularization after the certain number of years. The counsel for the petitioners pleads for consideration of the petitioners 2 and 4 in terms of the office memorandum dated 10.09.1993. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that the office memorandum which appends a scheme called 'Casual Labourers Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993” would be applicable only to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries of the Central Government/ Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices. It specifically excludes casual labourers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who have their own schemes. The learned counsel would further contend that the respondent- organization is a Company registered as Government Company under the Companies Act and although an instrumentality of State for the purpose of writ petition does not come under the direct control of any Ministry of the Union or a Department of Government of India. If the status of the respondent-institution is not seen to fall within the organization to which the scheme is extended, the only other point that has to be seen is whether the Court has a power to direct regularization Civil Writ Petition No.283 of 1989 - 3 - by the only fact that the petitioners have been in employment for more than 20 years in service. The case was admitted at that time by referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Versus Piara Singh-1992(5) SPJ 1, which recognized the right to seek for regularization and obtain appropriate directions through judicial interventions. I have to however observe that the judgment in Piara Singh was expressly overruled by Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi-2006(4) SCC 1. If there is no scheme for regularization for category of employment of the petitioners who are work charged employees and who did not fulfill the necessary qualification for regularization, I am afraid, it shall not be possible for the petitioners to secure the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The writ petition shall therefore fail and it is dismissed as such. There shall be however no directions as to costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.04.2010 sanjeev