CWP No. 18145 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 6.10.2010 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS HUDA and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. The petitioner was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar in the year 1993 on daily wage basis. The petitioner is continuously working since then and performed duty at various places. The petitioner is seeking regularization of his services. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.2 even recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization. Even in the case of Secretary, Sate of CWP No. 18145 of 2010 2 Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4, SCC, 01, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the employees who have continued to work for ten years or more, are entitled to regularization. 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. 18145 of 2010 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.” The petitioner has even served legal notice dated 6.3.2010 (Annexure P-7), but no decision has been taken thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the legal notice and take a decision thereon. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to take a decision on the legal notice (Annexure P-7) in the light of the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the recommendation made by respondent no.2 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is furnished to the competent authority. Needless to say, in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.10. 2010 MFK CWP No. 18145 of 2010 4