C.W.P. No.10748 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10748 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 13, 2009 Rajesh Kumar and another .....PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.R.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Kirti Singh, A.A.G.,Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition for issuing directions to the respondents to adjust them against the posts of Clerks in Municipal Council under the policy dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-9) issued by the State Government, whereby the earlier policy dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure P-3) has been withdrawn and the employees who had served the Municipal Councils during the strike, are to be adjusted. It is the case of the petitioners that when the employees of Municipal Committees in Haryana went on strike, they were selected and appointed, but they were not adjusted in the Municipal services after strike. In the petition, it has not been disclosed for how much period they had worked on posts of Clerks. It is the case of the petitioners that no C.W.P. No.10748 of 2007 -2- appointment letters were issued to them. It is further stated that the said appointment was made in view of the Government decision dated 20.12.1996 wherein it was decided that to substitute the strike workers, the appointment be made from the open market. It is further the case of the petitioners that subsequently the workers on strike returned to work and thereafter the services of the petitioners were terminated. In the petition, it has not been stated that when the services of the petitioners were terminated and how many days they had worked. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.6.2003 (Annexure P-6) rejected the claim of the petitioners on the pretext that the Government vide policy dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure P3) had taken a decision that only those candidates were to be adjusted in municipal services who had worked during whole period of strike, whereas the petitioners did not work during whole period of strike, as per the report submitted by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Narwana. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 21.3.2006 the State Government had issued the instructions to the effect that the employees who were engaged during the strike period should be adjusted against the vacant posts, but no step was taken by the respondents in terms of those instructions. It has been stated that by the said instructions, the earlier instructions dated 24.4.2001, by which the condition of working during whole strike period was stipulated for adjusting the candidates appointed during strike, has been withdrawn. It is further the case of the petitioners that they had been repeatedly approaching the respondents by making detailed representations, but no action was taken. In such circumstances, the petitioners served a legal notice upon respondent Nos.1 C.W.P. No.10748 of 2007 -3- to 3. When no action was taken on the said legal notice, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it has been stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. It has been averred that the claim of the petitioners for adjustment in municipal service was rejected by respondent No.1 in the year 2003 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2007. It has been further averred that the petitioners did not work during the whole strike period i.e. from 16.12.1996 to 4.3.1997, rather they worked only for 16 days i.e. from 16.12.1996 to 31.12.1996 as Safai Karamcharis. It has been specifically denied that the petitioners were ever appointed as Clerks and no appointment letters were issued to them by the competent authority. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it has been stated that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the list of employees engaged during strike period, prepared by the respective Municipalities nor they had worked throughout the strike period. It has been further averred that now the State Government has issued another policy dated 19.2.2007 to all the Municipalities and thereby conveyed its decision not to re-adjust the employees who had worked in the Municipalities during the strike. In light of the said policy, the petitioners cannot be given the benefit as claimed by them. Further the petitioners have no right to be re- adjusted as they had worked only for 16 days without any appointment letter issued to them and they had left the job within a fortnight on their own. The averments made on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4 have not been controverted at all. C.W.P. No.10748 of 2007 -4- After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I do not find any merit in the petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2007 by filing the instant petition, whereas their claim for re-adjustment was rejected by the respondents in the year 2003. As per the report received from Municipal Committee, Narwana, fact of which has been mentioned in the order dated 5.6.2003 (Annexure P-6), the petitioners had worked only for 16 days during the strike. Since the petitioners were not fulfilling the terms and conditions of adjustment policy to the effect that only those candidates were to be adjusted who had worked during the whole strike period i.e. from 16.12.1996 to 4.3.1997, therefore, they could not be re-adjusted. Further, on 19.2.2007, the State Government had issued another policy letter to all the Municipalities in the State, thereby conveying its decision not to re- adjust the employees who had worked in the Municipalities during the strike. The said policy decision has been upheld by this Court in CWP No.5280 of 2006 (Narender Kumar Versus The Municipal Council, Ambala City and others) decided on 11.03.2008, and rejected the claim of appointment made under the previous policy. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and also the fact that the petitioners had worked in Municipal Committee, Narwana during the strike for 16 days only, no direction as prayed by the petitioners can be issued to the respondents to adjust the petitioners against the posts of Clerks in Municipal Council. Dismissed. October 13, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE