CWP No. 18124 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 6.10.2010 Ali Hasan ...Petitioner VERSUS Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.PS Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged in the year 1973. He retired on 31.3.2005. Similarly situated person has been regularized whereas the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected vide non- speaking impugned order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-14). No reason whatsoever has been indicated in the impugned order for rejecting the claim CWP No. 18124 of 2010 2 of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record subsequent material to indicate that similarly situated person, namely, Shri Surat Singh has been regularized, as is evident from orders (Annexures P-17 to P-19). Even in the case of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4, SCC, 01, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the employees who have continued to work for ten years or more, are entitled to regularization. The relevant directions contained in the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more CWP No. 18124 of 2010 3 in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filed up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any, already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by- passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” The petitioner's claim for regularization has not been considered even in terms of the aforesaid judgment. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-14) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Directors with a direction to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the analogy of the said Surat Singh and in view of the aforesaid directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Let the claim of the petitioner be considered within a period of four months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.10. 2010 MFK CWP No. 18124 of 2010 4