C.W.P. No. 3064 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3064 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 4.8.2011 Krishan Kumar ..........Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate for the respondents. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 12.12.2008 vide which the claim of the petitioner for regularization was declined and also for issuing directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as unskilled worker from the date of his actual appointment like similarly situated employees, namely, Laxman Dass and Santokh Raj Saini and also to grant all consequential benefits arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner were non-regularized on 27.1.1981, whereas, other similarly situated employees, namely, Laxman Dass and Santokh Raj Saini were regularized prior to the regularization of the petitioner, which is discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits C.W.P. No. 3064 of 2009 (2) that the petitioner has been representing the respondent-Department for the last more than 30 years but the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and he has been ignored without any sufficient reason. Learned counsel also submits that ultimately, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that because of taking a lenient view by the Department, he was regularized but he was not entitled for regularization from the actual date of his appointment. Learned counsel has also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Saroj Kumari Vs. State of Punjab 1998 (3) SCT 664 and Sohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2006 (4) SCT 452 to support his contentions. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner earlier filed civil suit bearing No. 660 dated 2.5.1992, which was dismissed by the civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.1995. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.1996. Against that the petitioner did not file any appeal and the said judgment attained finality. As far as case of other similarly situated employees, namely, Laxman Dass and Santokh Raj Saini is concerned, they have filed RSA, which was allowed and the petitioner is not entitled for taking benefit of the decision in RSA filed by other employees. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the work and conduct of other employees was found to be satisfactory, whereas, the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found to be good and satisfactory and therefore his services were not regularized. The petitioner remained willfully absent from duty and for that a warning was issued on 21.9.1978. Subsequently, on finding the work and conduct of the petitioner to be satisfactory, his services were regularized vide order dated 27.1.1981 with effect from the date he again joined his duties and not from the date of his initial appointment. Learned counsel also submits that the C.W.P. No. 3064 of 2009 (3) petitioner has availed remedies before the civil Courts for the same cause of action and suit as well as appeal were dismissed, which was never challenged by the petitioner and as such the judgment of learned Additional District Judge attained finality. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 17547 of 2008, which was disposed of with a direction to decide legal notice by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was heard at length and subsequently a detailed speaking order was passed on 12.12.2008 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The representations of the petitioner were also disposed of by passing speaking order and after giving opportunity of hearing. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file. The petitioner was initially appointed as unskilled helper on 10.3.1978 and subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Plant Attendant on 27.10.1992. As per policy adopted by respondent No.4, the services of those employees whose work and conduct was satisfactory were regularized from the date of appointment/joining but the services of the petitioner were not regularized as his work and conduct was not found satisfactory. Subsequently, on finding the work of the petitioner to be satisfactory, his services were regularized w.e.f. 27.1.1981. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled for regularization from the date of his initial appointment as similarly situated employees have been regularized, whereas, he was ignored at that time. The plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the facts as the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, whereas, the work and conduct of other similarly situated employees was satisfactory and moreover after decision by the appellate Court, similarly situated employees, namely, C.W.P. No. 3064 of 2009 (4) Laxman Dass and Santokh Raj Saini filed RSA, which was allowed and on the basis of decision in RSA both the employees were regularized. The petitioner did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court and the order passed by the appellate Court attained finality. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on vague ground is not correct as a speaking order was passed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the present case as earlier the work and conduct of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and his services could not be regularized. Subsequently, he was regularized but he is claiming his regularization from the date of other similarly situated employees who have been regularized. The case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of those employees as their work and conduct was satisfactory and moreover they filed RSA against judgment and decree passed in the appeal which was allowed but the petitioner did not challenge the order of the appellate Court and the order of appellate Court attained finality. In view of the facts as mentioned above, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 4.8.2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE