CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16648 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 09, 2009 Lala Ram and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners would pray for their absorption/continuance against the regular vacant posts of Sawasthya Sahayak/Sanitary Supervisors, as per the policy which has been statedly formulated in view of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble court. The petitioners would seek this relief on the ground that they be put at par with similarly situated persons, who have been so absorbed. The petitioners were initially engaged as Sawasthya Sahayak in the year 1988. They used to engaged for four a half months in a year upto 2007. In the year 2009, the petitioners have been engaged for a period of three months. They are statedly CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16648 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: working as such. Though the petitioners are made to work in this manner, the work apparently being seasonal, they have made prayer for their permanent absorption. In support, they would refer to two Civil Writ Petition Nos.9631 of 1988 and 9633 of 1988, which were filed, seeking direction to absorb the petitioners therein regularly throughout the year and also to frame rotational policy to regulate the employment of seasonal engagement. These writ petitions were allowed on 9.5.1990. Directions were issued to the Government to frame a policy in this regard. The LPA filed against this decision was also dismissed on 2.4.1991. The State accordingly formulated a policy, providing that the seniority list of Sawasthya Sahayak/Sanitary Supervisor working in the Department on seasonal basis be prepared and in future to engage the persons only the basis of seniority so prepared. It was specifically provided in the policy that if there is a regular vacancy available, then Sawasthya Sahayak/Sanitary Supervisors engaged for four and a half months would be continued for whole year. They were to be terminated by following the rule of first come last go. Since the petitioners were employed on the policy of pick and choose, they filed a Civil Writ Petition No.12088 of 1992. They also prayed for a direction to the State to formulate a policy as was the direction while disposing of earlier writ petitions. This writ petition was dismissed on 11.1.1993, though the petitioners would term this as having been disposed of. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in this writ petition would show that the court did not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. The contention raised by the counsel that the petitioners CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16648 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: therein should be offered alternative posts, which the Government may envisage to fill, though may not strictly fall within the scheme was also not accepted but it was just observed as a hope that the State Government would give due consideration to this fact that the persons like the petitioners have worked under the Scheme on seasonal basis and so such persons should be given some preferential treatment. The petitioners apparently are working on seasonal basis in terms of these orders. It is averred by the petitioners that four persons have been regularly absorbed. The counsel would submit that 8 regular posts are lying vacant and are not being filled by absorbing the persons on regular basis. Once the earlier petition filed by the petitioners, making a similar claim was not accepted, they can not now come up at this belated stage to seek the same relief. Except for making a passing reference that 8 regular posts are lying vacant in District Mahendergarh, no material is placed on record to show if any such posts are vacant. The policy, which was formulated under the direction of this Court, was also for employing the workers for four and a half months. Now by reviving their claim, the petitioners can not seek the same relief, which was declined to them as far as back in the year 1993. The writ petition is, therefore, merit and is dismissed. November 09,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE