Civil Writ Petition No.14457 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 13, 2011 Mahesh Kumar & others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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? Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5,7 & 8. Mr.Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos.12 & 13. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have made a claim in this writ petition to keep them as regular employees in view of policy instruction, Civil Writ Petition No.14457 of 2007 : 2 : Annexure P-1. The primary submission is that the same consideration has been shown to some of the similarly situated employees, but it has been denied to the petitioners. The petitioners are those employees, who are taken in service during the strike of employees by the Municipal Committee from 16.12.1996 to 5.3.1997. The petitioners had offered this service during the strike held. They were appointed and worked from December, 1996 to April, 1997. The petitioners would refer to an assurance given to them that they shall not be removed from service and be regularized even if the striking employees joined duties. The services of the petitioners have been regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2003, but their grievance is that they have continuously worked either on daily wages or adhoc basis from 1998 onwards. On same consideration, the services of some of the have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment. This has also been done in terms of policy instruction, Annexure P-1. The counsel appearing for Municipal Council submits that the policy instruction, Annexure P-1, has been withdrawn. That, in my view, would not make much difference as the policy instruction was withdrawn in the year 2007, whereas the case of the petitioners was considered for regularization in the year 2005 and the necessary order was passed regularizing the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 1.10.2003. It is in this background that the petitioners were claiming parity with those employees whose services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment. Based on the submissions made before the Bench, the court on 20.11.2009 had observed as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.14457 of 2007 : 3 : “After addressing arguments for some time,learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions as to how these seven petitioners have been left out of the scope of regularization w.e.f. 1998, while other similarly situated employees have been granted this benefit. Adjourned to 9.12.2009.” Subsequently, the State counsel has filed an affidavit to explain the reason as to why this consideration for regularization from the date of appointment could not be granted to the petitioners. The only submission made is that the petitioners had not represented, whereas those persons had filed a representation in this regard. This, in my view, cannot be justified in law to deny parity to the petitioners, once they are found to be similarly situated. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of regularization of the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment in terms of the policy instruction, which would apply at the time of consideration, i.e., in the year 2005. If the case of the petitioners is similar, the same could be considered and appropriate order passed by the respondent-Government. If any adverse order is still passed, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach any appropriate forum in this regard. Let the needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. May 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE