LPA No. 1375 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1375 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.10.2010 State of Punjab through Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation and Power, Mini Secretariat (Punjab), Sector 9-C, Chandigarh and others. ......Appellants Vs Sohan Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed on work- charge basis as a Driver in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Punjab on 27.04.1984. He retired on 31.03.2009 after rendering nearly 25 years of service. As the respondent/writ petitioner was not regularized despite the long years of service rendered he had approached this Court seeking a direction for his regularization and thereafter for grant of retiral benefits. The said prayer having been allowed by the learned Single Judge the State has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The materials on record indicate that a policy decision was LPA No. 1375 of 2010 (O&M) 2 effected by the State of Punjab to regularize different categories of employees including work-charge employees who had rendered 10 years of continuous service on 10.04.2006 without intervention of any Court or Tribunal and who possessed the basic qualification for the post. The aforesaid policy was circulated by office memorandum dated 15.12.2006. Notwithstanding the above declaration of policy in the year 2006, the State of Punjab decided to implement the same in the year 2009 only. On 27.02.2009 a list of eligible employees of the establishment in which the respondent/writ petitioner was working was submitted for consideration for regularization. In the said list the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was included. However, due to imposition of the Model Code of Conduct w.e.f. 02.03.2009 the decision with regard to the regularization process could not be finalized. In the meantime, the respondent/writ petitioner retired on 31.03.2009. The above facts are available in para 3 of the reply/affidavit dated 24.05.2010 filed by the appellant/State before the learned Single Judge. If there was a policy in force for regularization of categories of employees like the respondent/writ petitioner since the year 2006, the same ought to have been implemented in time. Even assuming that there are good reasons for the delayed implementation of the said policy in terms of which the name of the respondent/writ petitioner was recommended for regularization, imposition of the Model Code of Conduct which is pleaded in defence cannot be construed to be a valid ground for not taking the final decision for LPA No. 1375 of 2010 (O&M) 3 regularization while the respondent/writ petitioner was still in service. The Model Code of Conduct imposed on account of elections to the Parliament or State Assembly does not prohibit the government from discharging its routine and day to day business. In the present case, the matter pertaining to the regularization of the respondent/writ petitioner in terms of the policy in force was a routine business of the State Government. In the above circumstances, we can find no fault with the order of the learned Single Judge directing regularization and payment of retiral benefits as well as the direction for payment of costs imposed upon the appellant/State. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, not entertained on the above grounds. C.M. No. 4159 of 2010 As we are not entertaining the Letters Patent Appeal, no order will be called for in the stay application. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 14.10.2010 JUDGE Amodh