IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 1995 Date of decision: 20th July, 2010 Satvir Singh … Petitioner Versus Haryana State Electricity Board and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tribhuwan Dahiya, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, a prayer has been made that the respondent-Haryana State Electricity Board be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1982, the day on which the services of his juniors were regularized. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 27th November, 1978 vide Annexure P-1, has averred in the present petition that as per the policy decision taken by the Government vide Annexure P-2 on 23rd February, 1982, his services were to be regularized, as before the cut-off date specified in Annexure P-2, i.e. 31st March, 1982, he had completed two years of service. It will be necessary to notice the brief facts of the case. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 27th November, 1978 vide Annexure P-1 and the Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 1995 Government had issued policy decision (Annexure P-2) on 23rd February, 1982. However, it is stated that an unfortunate incident had taken place at the place of posting of the petitioner and a Labourer was killed by a truck of the Contractor on 21st June, 1982. The petitioner was named as an accused in case FIR No.53 of 1982 registered under Section 435, 436, 148 and 149 IPC, and his services were terminated on 29th June, 1982. However, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide his judgment dated 5th April, 1983. Due to pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner was not taken back in service, even though his co-employees, who were working on adhoc basis, were reinstated. The petitioner challenged the order of his termination in the Labour Court and thereafter, filed Civil Writ Petition No.4865 of 1986, which was rendered infructuous in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner to the employer. In pursuance of the arrangement arrived at between the petitioner and the employer, order (Annexure P-4) was passed. It will be pertinent to reproduce the contents of the same, which read as under: “You have filed subject cited Civil Writ Petition in the High Court challenging Labour Court award dt. 7.3.86. Now vide your application dt. 4.12.86, you have offered to forego your back wages for the period you remained out of job provided you are taken back on duty. Your request has been considered and accepted and you are hereby allowed to resume duty on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to you at the time of your termination of your services i.e. LDC on ad hoc basis. It is explicitly made clear that no wages for the period you remained out of employment shall be paid to you. You are also required to withdraw the pending writ petition from High Court. Please report for duty in the office of Director/Const./Civil WYC HE Project, HSEB, Bhudkalan immediately on receipt of this letter.” 2 Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 1995 The petitioner again approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.7030 of 1992, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services in terms of judgment rendered in ‘State of Haryana v. Piara Singh’ 1992 (5) SPJ 1. The order passed by the Division Bench reads as under: “Disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana v. Piara Singh’, 1992 (5) S.P.J. Page 1. The petitioner be granted this relief only if it is found that his case falls within the purview of this judgment or any other subsequent instructions issued by the respondent-Board in this behalf. Sd/- S.S. Sodhi Judge. Sd/- G.C. Garg Dec. 3, 1992 Judge” Case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities and his services were regularized with effect from 31st December, 1990. Counsel for the petitioner states that services of the petitioner were to be regularized with effect from 1st April, 1982, as on that day services of his juniors were regularized. Learned counsel states that if he had suffered any handicap due to the registration of a criminal case, that came to an end when he was acquitted of the charges on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that having failed in the Labour Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition and during the pendency of the same, order (Annexure P-4) was passed, the contents of which have been reproduced above. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the petitioner is to be treated as to be in service right from the beginning. Therefore, the employer by regularizing services of the petitioner from 3 Civil Writ Petition No.18731 of 1995 31st December, 1990, committed a grave injustice, as the juniors to the petitioner have been allowed to steal the march over the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents states that entry of the petitioner into service was a backdoor entry and services of none of his juniors have been regularized. To controvert this assertion of counsel for the respondents, counsel for the petitioner relied upon pleadings to say that S/Shri Parkash Vir, Jaidev Singh, Chander Bhan-I, Chander Bhan-II and Ram Singh were junior to the petitioner and their services were regularized. No specific denial to this assertion of counsel for the petitioner has been made by counsel for the respondents. In these circumstances, present petition is hereby disposed of by directing the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to demonstrate that services of his juniors were regularized before regularization of his services. Furthermore, in case the authorities come to a conclusion that services of any of his juniors were regularized before regularization of services of the petitioner, the authorities shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all those, who will be adversely affected by regularization of services of the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1982 and thereafter shall pass a detailed order, noticing the contentions to be advanced by the petitioner. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 20, 2010 rps 4