CWP No.4960 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision:09.03.2010 Rajbir Singh and anothers Vs. State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Param Pal Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.RKS Brar,Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioners were engaged as daily wagers more than 20 years back. The dates of their engagement have been indicated in the application submitted by the petitioners for seeking their regularisation, Annexure P-5. The grievance of the petitioners is that under various policies of the State Government framed from time to time, the persons who were engaged later than the petitioners have been regularised ignoring the right and claim of the petitioners. Some of the names of such persons have been mentioned in the aforesaid representation Annexure P-5. In the reply filed by the respondents, factual averments made in the writ petition have not been disputed. The question of CWP No.4960 of 2009 2 reglarisation has been considered by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Sate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 01. 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 in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are CWP No.4960 of 2009 3 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court n the case of U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey and others, 2008 (1) RSJ 304, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question of parity of the similarly situated employees. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “ 19. In the present case many of the petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' services and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularization is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence, apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the CWP No.4960 of 2009 4 benefit of regularization and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face.” The petitioners are working for the last more than 20 years. They are entitled to be considered for regularisation in the light of the observations made in the judgments aforesaid. Let the claim of the petitioners for regularisation be considered in the light of the judgments mentioned above within a period of three months and pass consequential orders from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. In the event, the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the same shall be by passing a speaking and well reasoned order. Petition disposed of. No costs. 09.03.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE