CWP No.3567 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 02.03.2010 Sukhbir Singh Vs The State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. RS Kundu, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Requisite number of copies of the writ petition have been supplied to him today itself in Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. The petitioner was engaged as a Helper to the Tubewell Pump Operator at Bus Stand, Haryana Roadways, Assandh, on 2.4.1999. His services were terminated on 30.11.2001. He raised an Industrial Disputes and a reference was made to the appropriate government. The Labour Court passed an award dated 13.6.2006 setting aside the termination of the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement on muster roll with continuity of service and arrears of CWP No.3567 of 2010 2 salary etc. The award of the Labour Court came to be challenged before this Court. However, the writ petition filed by the respondents being CWP No.19954 of 2006 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2007. The SLP filed against the order of this Court in the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2008. The petitioner has been reinstated into service on 30.12.2007 in accordance with the award. Now the petitioner is seeking regularisation of his services in terms of the government policy. As far the question of regularisation is concerned, the issue is set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 1, wherein the following directions have been issued:- “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 CWP No.3567 of 2010 3 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 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 also made representation Annexure P-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to take a final decision on the representation Annexure P-1. In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-1 in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble CWP No.3567 of 2010 4 Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. In the event, the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by passing a speaking and well reasoned order. No costs. 02.03.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE