Civil Writ Petition No.453 of 2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.453 of 2006 Date of decision: August 31, 2010. Sukhdev Singh Sandhu & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Y.K. Khullar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure P-7), along with orders dated 19.12.2005 (Annexures P-9 and P- 10). Both the petitioners had joined the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar on 89 days basis against vacant posts as Apprentices Engineers. Subsequently, the Electrical Wing of the Corporation had merged with the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). Having exercised their option, the petitioners became the employees of PSEB. Petitioners had earlier filed CWP No.9768 of 1987 in this Court. The same was decided by a Single Civil Writ Petition No.453 of 2006 -: 2 :- Judge of this Court on January 22, 2003 by passing the following order:- “This is a petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the posts of Apprentice Engineers. After arguing the case for some time, Shri Bajwa made a request that his clients may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to make representation to the employer for regularization of their services as per the existing policy. In my opinion, the request made by the learned Counsel is reasonable and merits acceptance. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to represent for regularization of their services as per the existing policy of the State Government. I hope that the competent authority will take appropriate decision in the matter keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been in the service of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar for last more than 16 years which is almost half of the normal service span of an employee. January 22, 2003. Sd/- G.S. Singhvi, Judge” Counsel for the petitioners has made a grievance that by identical orders, Annexures P-9 and P-10, claim of both the petitioners has been rejected. The order Annexure P-9 reads as follows:- “Sub:- Regularization of services w.e.f. 30.4.86. The request for regularization of your services from back date i.e. from 30.4.86 has been considered and not found feasible of acceptance. This issues with the approval of the Board.” Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the order rejecting the prayer for regularization is neither a speaking one nor it takes into consideration the observations made by a Single Judge of this Court, whereby it was expected that 16 years of service rendered by the petitioners Civil Writ Petition No.453 of 2006 -: 3 :- shall be taken into consideration sympathetically. Counsel further submits that the authorities have also not taken into consideration the fact that one Paramjit Kaur, who was junior to the petitioners, has been regularized and as such, on this analogy, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized from the day, their said junior was regularized. Shri Y.P. Khullar, Counsel appearing for the respondent- Electricity Board, is not able to justify the orders Annexures P-9 and P-10, as to why the Board has not taken into consideration the observations made by this Court in the order dated 22.1.2003 (Annexure P-5), passed in CWP No.9768 of 1987. Furthermore, he has also not been able to furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why the case of the petitioners has not been equated with that of Paramjit Kaur, the alleged junior of the petitioners. Shri Khullar further submits that a speaking order shall be passed after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to pass a speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners. However, there will be no order as to costs. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 31, 2010. Judge kadyan