IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 446 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.1.2010. Satbir --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. The petitioner was engaged as Helper on 23.3.1984 on daily wages in the Haryana Roadways at its Gurgaon Depot. At the relevant time Haryana Roadways was a department of the Govt. In the year 1987 the Haryana Roadways Corporation was created, however, the petitioner opted to remain an employee of the Govt. Petitioner claims to be working since then. He filed CWP No. 5944 of 1994 before this Court seeking his regularization on the basis of his continuous engagement. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.1.2008 directing the respondents no.1 to 3 therein to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of service from the date his juniors have been regularized. The State of Haryana through the Transport Commissioner and respondent no.2 General Manager were parties to the aforesaid writ petition. The direction was a composite one to all the three respondents. On the basis of the aforesaid direction of the Court the case of the petitioner has been considered by the CWP. No. 446 of 2010 -2- General Manager, Haryana Roadways Engineering Corporation, Gurgaon. The claim of the petitioner has been considered and disposed of vide impugned order dated 1.5.2008 (Annexure P-10). The Corporation has declined the consideration on merits on the ground that petitioner continued to be the employee of the State Govt. and thus, the Corporation is unable to decide the question of regularization. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to be the employee of the State Govt. His case for regularization can only be considered by the employer. The Corporation is not the employer of the petitioner, hence, no infirmity in the impugned order. However, the fact remains that in view of the directions of the High Court dated 23.1.2008 passed in CWP No. 5944 of 1994 the State Govt. is required to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization. The present writ petition has been filed in view of the observations made by the Contempt Court in COCP No. 1828 of 2008 (Annexure P-11). In view of the totality of the circumstances and the earlier direction passed by this Court, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondent. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 13.1.2010. lucky