CWP NO.1824 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 05.2.2009 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Ms.Jyoti Sareen, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of this Court, Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. With the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner was engaged as Driver on daily wage basis on 1.6.1993. He is continuing on the post since then. The petitioner claims regularization of his services. His case was also recommended vide Annexure P-5. He also served legal notice dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure P- 6). The grievance of the petitioner is that he is working against a sanctioned post, but his services have not been regularized till date. The State Government even notified policy dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) for CWP NO.1824 OF 2009 2 regularization of services of similarly situated persons. Even then, no consideration has been accorded to the case of the petitioner. The issue of regularization is finally set at rest by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein following observations have been made:- “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 above referred 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 in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should CWP NO.1824 OF 2009 3 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.” Under the given circumstances, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the government policy which also appears to have been based on the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequential order be passed within a period of four months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say, if the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 05.2.2009 MFK