RSA No.3842 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3842 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 30.09.2010. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others .....Appellants Versus Smt. Phoolwati ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sidharath Batra, Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.11480-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal. Defendants-Haryana Urban Development Authority and its functionaries are in second appeal. Suit was filed by Phoolwati plaintiff-respondent against appellant. Plaintiff was appointed as part time Sweeper by the appellants in January, 1988. Plaintiff's case is that she was engaged as full time Sweeper by the appellants/defendants vide letter dated 19.01.1996 with effect from 22.01.1996. Plaintiff sought regularization of her services on the basis of Government policy dated 01.10.2003 as modified by Policy dated 10.02.2004. The defendants refused to regularize the services of the plaintiff on the RSA No.3842 of 2010 (O & M) -2- plea that the employees engaged prior to 31.01.1996 only were entitled to regularization whereas the plaintiff was engaged as full time Sweeper with effect from 01.02.1996. However, plaintiff claimed that she had been engaged as full time Sweeper with effect from 22.01.1996 and, therefore, under the aforesaid Policies, the plaintiff was entitled to regularization. Defendants contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that since plaintiff became full time Sweeper from 01.02.1996, she is not entitled to regularization of her services as she had not been engaged as full time Sweeper before 31.01.1996. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 decreed the plaintiff's suit directing regularization of her services with effect from 22.01.1996. Consequential relief was also granted. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been decided by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2010 whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court have been modified to the extent that regularization of services of the plaintiff shall not be with effect from 22.01.1996 as directed by the trial Court, but shall be in terms of notifications dated 01.02.2003 and 10.02.2004. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below that plaintiff had been engaged as full time Sweeper with effect RSA No.3842 of 2010 (O & M) -3- from 22.01.1996. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding does not raise any substantial question of law. On the contrary, the said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons recorded by the Courts below. Consequently, in view of said finding, the plaintiff has been rightly ordered to be regularized in service in terms of notifications dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004. The only ground to refuse regularization of services of the plaintiff was that she had been engaged as full time Sweeper with effect from 01.02.1996 and, therefore, she did not fulfill the condition for regularization of services that the employee should have been engaged before 31.01.1996. However, in fact the plaintiff had been engaged as full time Sweeper with effect from 22.01.1996 and, therefore, she fulfilled the aforesaid criterion laid down in the regularization policy. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contented that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi and others, (2006) 4 SCC I, regularization policies have been withdrawn by the State of Haryana vide notifications dated 25.04.2007 and 29.05.2007. However, admittedly employees already regularized under the regularization policies would continue to be regular employees and their cases are not to be reopened consequent to withdrawal of the regularization policies vide notifications dated 25.04.2007 and 29.05.2007. In the instant case, plaintiff had filed the suit on 17.02.2005 and, therefore, RSA No.3842 of 2010 (O & M) -4- her right to get her services regularized crystallized on that date and even decree of trial Court had been passed on 29.11.2006 i.e before withdrawal of the regularization policies. Consequently, regularization of services of plaintiff cannot be declined merely because the regularization policies were withdrawn subsequently. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 30.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE