CWP No.19813 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 16.3.2010 Dharamvir ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Navin Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RS Kundu, Addl.A.G., Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Reply filed in Court is taken on record. Keeping in view the prayer made and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Ticket Verifier on the basis of selection through interview vide order dated 5.7.1990 (Annexure P-1). He was to remain on probation for a period of two years extended upto three years. Under the Haryana Government notification dated 7.1.1998, the petitioner was granted the benefit of first ACP and placed in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 on completion of ten years of regular satisfactory service vide order dated 17.8.2000 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure P-3) CWP No.19813 of 2008 2 to explain why his services be not de-regularized w.e.f. 1.4.1993 and first ACP granted to him be withdrawn. The petitioner submitted reply dated 19.8.2008 (Annexure P-4) to the aforesaid show cause notice pleading that he was appointed vide order dated 5.7.1990 on probation and on completion of the probation, he is deemed to be confirmed. Despite reply, the Transport Commissioner, Haryana passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) whereby the services of the petitioner were declared to have been not regularized from 1.4.1993 and the first ACP scale granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn w.e.f. 1.4.1993. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. In the reply filed by the respondents, reliance is placed upon the Notification dated 11.5.1994 (Annexure R-1) whereby rules regarding regularization of the services of ad hoc or daily wagers were notified. It is stated that the petitioner being the ad hoc employee, could have been regularized on completion of a minimum of two year's service as on 31.3.1993. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the aforesaid notification. The notification dated 11.5.1994 has no application in case of the petitioner. These rules are for regularization of ad hoc /daily wagers employees. The petitioner was neither an ad hoc nor a daily wager employee. The petitioner was appointed on regular basis through the process of selection vide order dated 5.7.1990 (Annexure P-1) and placed on probation for a period of two years. Admittedly, on completion of the probation, the services of the petitioner were not dispensed with. To the contrary he was allowed to continue in service without any interruption. CWP No.19813 of 2008 3 Under these circumstances, he is deemed to be regularized on successful completion of the probation period. The petitioner's regular service thus shall be deemed to have been made from the date of his appointment i.e. 5.7.1990. Under the ACP Rules notified in the year 1998, he was rightly granted the first ACP benefit on completion of ten years of regular satisfactory service. There is no averment in the reply that the petitioner suffered any disciplinary proceedings during the period of ten years when he was granted the benefit of the first ACP vide order dated 7.8.2000 (Annexure P-2). The benefits have been sought to be withdrawn vide the impugned order without there being any lawful and valid reason. It is shocking that not only ACP benefit has been withdrawn on totally baseless and flimsy ground, but even the date of regularization of the services of the petitioner has been shifted to 1.4.2003. This order passed by the Transport Commissioner is totally illegal, unwarranted and non-sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.2008 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be regular government employee with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 5.7.1990 and he is also entitled to the first ACP as granted vide order dated 17.8.2000 (Annexure P-2). If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded back to him. Let the needful be done within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.3.2010 MFK