IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 6006 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.1.2011. Maghar Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Instructor in regular pay scale of Rs. 200-450/- vide order dated 9.12.1977 on the basis of departmental selection process. He joined on 2.1.1978 in I.T.I. (Boys), Hoshiarpur. Thereafter, the petitioner served as Art & Craft Teacher Training Institutes, Nabha and Amritsar. He retired from Amritsar as on 30.9.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. The claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits was denied due to non-regularization of his services. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner always received the benefit of the revised pay scales from time to time and was treated as a regular Govt. employee for all acts and purposes. Vide interlocutory order dated 15.1.2010 respondents were directed to take final decision regarding the regularization of the services of the petitioner from the due date. An affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Director, Administration, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab annexing thereto copy of order dated 12.7.2010. The claim of the CWP. No. 6006 of 2009 -2- petitioner for regularization has again been rejected. One of the principle ground for rejection of the claim is that under the Govt. policy i.e. Instructions dated 23.1.2001 workers/daily wagers were to be regularized and were paid from the contingency fund, whereas the petitioner was on ad hoc basis in the regular pay scale. This plea is totally uncalled for and is contrary to the basic principles of the service jurisprudence. An ad hoc employee is always better placed than a contingency paid employee. An ad hoc adjustment is always against an available vacancy, whereas the contingency post is against no vacancy. Under these circumstances, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is totally unjustified. Impugned order dated 27.3.2009 (Annexure P-9) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein in para 53 following directions have been issued:- “ 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 regularization 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 CWP. No. 6006 of 2009 -3- context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as 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 the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled 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 regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” Let the case of the petitioner be considered in the light of the aforesaid directions within a period of two months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 14.1.2011. lucky