CWP No.5933 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.5933 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 19, 2008 RAJVINDER SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA. PRESENT: MR. K.L. ARORA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. B.S. CHAHAL, DAG, PUNJAB. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-9) vide which the case for regularization of his services as Pump Operator has been rejected by the Superintending Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Circle, Ludhiana. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the respondents on 1.7.1988 and has been working since then as a Pump Operator. It has been averred that as the petitioner has been performing his duties on the post of Pump Operator for the last more than 16 years against a regular vacant post, therefore, he is entitled to be regularized. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the reply to the legal notice served upon the respondents by the petitioner wherein the Sub Divisional Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Department (GW), Sub Division Faridkot (Annexure P-4) has admitted that the petitioner has worked as Pump Operator from CWP No.5933 of 2008 -2- 1.7.1988 to 31.12.2001, at the main Water Supply, Faridkot as well as at the residence of DC/SSP. As per Annexure P-4 it has further been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has been continuously working as Pump Operator from 1.1.2002, till date, at the residence of DC/SSP. Learned counsel submits that although the petitioner does not possess the qualification for the post of Pump Operator, but he has worked for more than last 16 years, therefore, he has acquired sufficient experience and hence his case should be considered for regularization of his services as Pump Operator. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, reported as 1992(8) SLR 784 wherein it has been held that “once appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation.” On the basis of aforementioned authority, counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service as Pump Operator. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 wherein it has been averred that the petitioner has been working as Petrolman on daily wage basis. It has also been averred that the petitioner was given the duties of the post of Pump Operator due to exigency of work. While giving him the duties of Pump Operator it was made clear to the petitioner that he will not get any benefit of the post of Pump Operator. It CWP No.5933 of 2008 -3- has further been averred that the petitioner does not fulfill the basic qualification for the post of Pump Operator and hence his services cannot be regularized as Pump Operator. It has also been averred that the petitioner has given in writing to the respondents, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure R-1, wherein he has stated that he has been working at the main Water Works, Faridkot as Petrolman. The letter written by the petitioner to the Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health (GW) Sub Division No.2, Faridkot is as under:- “Sir, It is submitted that I am doing the work at main Water works Faridkot as Petrolman. So, I came to know that Sh.Maghi Ram Pump Operator who is working in the Kothi of Deputy Commissioner is since been retired. I want to do the work in his place. So, I am requested you that in case I shall posted at any other Post like Mali-cum-Chowkidar, Helper Pump Operator etc. except Petrolman by your office. I will not claim any other benefit and also do not demand to regularize me except Petrolman and not file any other case. So keeping in view my request, I may be deputed at the Kothi of Deputy Commissioner in place of Maghi Ram Pump Operator. Fro which I shall be highly obliged.” In view of the above, counsel for the respondents submits that the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as Pump Operator has rightly been rejected by the competent authority vide order Annexure P-9. CWP No.5933 of 2008 -4- We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. Although the Sub Divisional Engineer vide his letter (Annexure P-4) has admitted that the petitioner has worked as Pump Operator from 1.7.1988, till date, but this fact has been denied in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Petrolman and was given the work of Pump Operator occasionally due to exigency of work. The petitioner has himself admitted that he was engaged on daily wage bases at the main Water Works, Faridkot as a Petrolman. Thus, it cannot be categorically stated that the petitioner had been performing the duties of a Pump Operator. Apart from the above, the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Pump Operator is Matric with 2 years ITI Course in Electrician or Motor Mechanic Trade whereas, the petitioner is only middle pass (Class 8). From the above it is clear that the petitioner does not possess the basic minimum qualification for the post of Pump Operator. Moreover, a perusal of Annexure R-1 which is a letter written by the petitioner himself clearly shows that the petitioner has been working as Petrolman and not as Pump Operator. The petitioner himself stated that he will not claim any benefit and will also not demand his services to be regularized except the post of Petrolman. This fact also goes to show that the petitioner was given duties of Pump Operator only as a stop-gap arrangement. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the petitioner was engaged as Petrolman on muster rolls and further that he does not fulfill the minimum basic qualifications for the post of Pump Operator. The case of the petitioner is not similar to Bhagwati Prasad's case (supra) which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. CWP No.5933 of 2008 -5- In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE December 19, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA) Gulati JUDGE