COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2008 1. COCP NO.922 OF 2008 Harwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Mr.P.S.Aujla and others …Respondents 2.COCP NO.1204 OF 2008 Kuldeep Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Mr.Arvinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.K.L.Arora, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents Permod Kohli, J. Both the Contempt Petitions relate to regularisation of services of the petitioners who were engaged by the State- respondents from time to time on daily wage basis. The petitioners in COCP No. 922 of 2008 filed CWP No.5484 of 2003 seeking their regularization which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2007 with the following directions:- COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :2: “In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in terms of the policy/instructions dated 15.12.2006 as well as, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (supra). The competent authority shall pass a well reasoned speaking order, on the issues narrated here-in-above, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to submit a representation/supplementary representation to supplement their submissions on the issues under reference within two months from today. Disposed of accordingly.” Petitioners in COCP No.1204 of 2008 filed CWP No.1889 of 2008 which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.2.2008 with the following directions:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner will be satisfied if the writ petition is treated as a representation and the same is decided within a stipulated period. Respondent no.2 i.e. the Chief Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab, the Mall, Patiala is directed to treat the Writ Petition as a representation and take a final decision by COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :3: passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receiving of this order. With the above direction, petition is disposed of.” It is stated in COCP No.922 of 2008 that the petitioners in CWP No.5484 of 2003 filed a detailed representation pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. Replies have been filed in both the contempt petitions. Alongwith the replies, the respondents have also placed on record speaking orders rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularisation. The sum and substance of the replies filed by the respondents is that the petitioners are not entitled to the regularisation in terms of the Government Policy dated 15.12.2006,which inter alia, provides for regularisation of such daily wagers who have rendered ten years or more service without any break upto 10.4.2006 against the sanctioned posts in the department w.e.f. 14.6.2007, as per their seniority and educational/technical qualification prescribed therein. It was stated that some of the daily wagers who fall within the purview of the policy, were regularised against the available vacant sanctioned posts. However, the petitioners could not be regularised due to non-availability of sanctioned posts in the department and their turn has not yet come to regularise their services, as per seniority. The respondents have also relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :4: Mr.Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the petitioners are deemed to be regularized in terms of the Model Standing Orders issued under the Factories Act as they have rendered more than two years of service which itself is sufficient for regularization. According to him, the petitioners are deemed to be regularized in terms of the Model Standing Orders 3 (2). He has referred to Section 12-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Model Standing Orders to contend that where the Department has not framed its own Model Standing Orders, the Model Standing Orders as framed by the Government shall apply and under the aforementioned Model Standing Orders 3 (2), on completion of period of probation, the workman is deemed to be confirmed in service. Mr. Arora has relied upon the cases of Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. vs. Venkatiah and another, AIR 1964 S.C. 1272 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh, JT 2006 (10) SC 635 to argue that standing orders are statutory in nature and by virtue of the aforesaid standing orders, petitioners are deemed to have been regularized and thus, the rejection of their claims by the respondents is not legally sustainable I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The contentions of Mr. Arora are misconceived. In exercise of the contempt jurisdiction, this Court has only to examine whether the directions issued by this Court have been duly complied with or not. In CWP No.1889 of 2008, the writ petition was treated as representation and respondents were required to take a final decision COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :5: by passing a speaking order. In CWP No.5484 of 2003, the respondents were required to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization in terms of Government Policy dated 15.12.2006 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Uma Devi (supra). In both the cases, speaking orders have been passed. The respondents specifically referred to the Government Policy as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) and rejected the claim of the petitioners by passing speaking orders. This satisfies the court directions. The contention of Mr. Arora that the petitioners are deemed to be regularised in the light of the standing orders, is also without any substance. This argument should have been raised in the writ petitions. But the petitioners only prayed for disposal of their representations. This Court, in exercise of contempt jurisdiction, cannot re-open the writ petitions and consider the plea on merits of the controversy. Even otherwise, at the first place, the Government Department cannot be construed to be a “factory”. Even if it is assumed that the Model Standing Orders are applicable, the Model Standing Orders 3 (3) which defines “Probationer”, clearly provides the engagement of the workman who is provisionally employed to fill a vacancy in a permanent post and has not been confirmed as permanent in accordance with these standing orders. It is appropriate to notice Model Standing Orders 3 (3) as follows:- “Standing Model Orders 3 (3): “Probationer” is a workman who is provisionally employed to fill a vacancy in a permanent post and has not been COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :6: confirmed as permanent in accordance with these standing orders. Ordinarily, the period of probation shall be six months, but it may be extended by a period of three months at a time, at the discretion of the management, if the management considers it necessary in any case to further adjudge the work and merits of a workman. The maximum probation period shall, however, in no case, extend beyond one year.” From the definition of “Probationer” referred to here-in- above, it is clear that “Probationer” is a person who is engaged provisionally against a permanent post. It is common case of the parties that the engagement of the petitioners was only on daily wage basis and not against any permanent post. It is also specific averment in the reply that no vacancy exists for absorption of petitioners as also there are persons senior to them who are working as daily wagers. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the directions issued by this Court have been fully complied with and respondents have not violated any order of this Court. Even in Uma Devi's case (supra) any concluded judgment which is contrary to the directions in Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be enforced as is evident from the observations made in paragraph 54 of the judgment which reads as under:- “54.It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :7: what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” The government employment is basically a public employment and the observance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is imperative. This is the ratio of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). Regularization of the employees who are engaged without any process of selection or without providing opportunity to all eligible candidates is contrary to the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus regularization of such persons has been held to be impermissible in Uma Devi's case (supra). In view of the above, I find no merit in both the contempt petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Copy of this judgment be placed on record on each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 14.11.2008 MFK NOTE:Whether to be reported or not:YES COCP NOs.922 & 1204 OF 2008 :8: