CWP No. 2383 of 2008. 10.12.2009 Present: Mr. Shrawan Dogra Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl.AG, Anshul Bansal Addl.AG with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. AG, for the respondents. The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of office order dated 30.10.2008, Anexure-P/4 issued by respondent No. 3 with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization as Peon in the department of Agriculture on the basis of regularization policy dated 9.9.2008, Annexure-P/7 with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as Supervisor in September, 1997 by respondent No. 3. It has been submitted that at Dodra Kawar there is a Single Line Administration and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Dodra Kawar acts as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of all the departments in Sub Division and is competent to do all such acts as the concerned Head of Department of respective department in the Sub Division is competent to do. 3. The petitioner was later on appointed as Peon w.e.f. 1.1.2000. the petitioner was disengaged and a reference to the effect was made by the Government for adjudication to the Labour Court which was decided on 1.10.2007 vide Annexure-P/1. the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the petitioner and petitioner was held entitled for reinstatement with seniority and back wages at the rate of 50% till his re-engagement at Dodra Kawar from where the petitioner was removed from service by respondents. The -2- petitioner gave his joining vide Annexure-P/2 dated 1.12.2007 to respondent No. 3. it has been submitted that the award dated 1.10.2007 had attained finality. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that now again notice dated 30.10.2008, Annexure-P/4 has been issued by respondent No. 3 to petitioner for terminating his engagement as Peon w.e.f. 30.11.2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the notice dated 30.10.2008 is wrong, illegal and is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as no retrenchment compensation has been ordered to be paid as per notice dated 30.10.2008 to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though the petitioner had worked as Supervisor and Peon as stated above but the petitioner is confining his claim for regularization as Peon after counting his service as Supervisor also. The notice dated 30.10.2008 is not in accordance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the notice dated 30.10.2008 there is no reference of payment of compensation which is required to be paid under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the time of retrenchment, therefore, notice dated 30.10.2008, Annexure-P/4 is quashed. 5. The policy for regularization dated 9.9.2008, Annexure-P/7 is on record which provides that after completion of -3- eight years of continuous service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year the daily wager is entitled for regularization. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has completed 240 days in each calendar year from September, 1997 onwards after including the benefit given by Labour Court vide award dated 1.10.2007. The stand of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents. Therefore, prima facie the case of the petitioner requires consideration for regularization under the policy dated 9.9.2008, Annexure-P/7. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per policy dated 9.9.2008, Annexure-P/7 within a period of two months from today and till then the respondents shall not disengage the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of. (Kuldip Singh) Judge. December 10,2009. (KC)