Civil Writ Petition No. 6248 of 1992 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6248 of 1992 Date of decision: 22.9.2009 Kahan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: None for the parties. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner and one Tilak Raj came to be initially appointed on daily wages basis with effect from 14.11.1984 and 14.1.1985 respectively. The respondent Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) had taken a decision “to convert all daily waged workers into work-charge who have put in 500 working days in the service of the Board upto 31.3.88 and are continuing in service of the Board till the decision of the Board”. It is not a matter of dispute, nor is any there controversy, about the fact that petitioner had completed 1454 days of service on 21.12.1988. The petitioner filed representation on 14.11.1991 for the regularisation of his services. However, the respondents did not respond. Tilak Raj aforementioned filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 8504 of 1991 for the issuance of a mandamus directing respondents to regularise his service. The Division Bench disposed of the petition vide order dated 7.6.1991 (Annexure P-5) directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner therein (Tilak Raj) by passing a speaking order thereon. In Civil Writ Petition No. 6248 of 1992 -2- **** accordance with the direction aforementioned, respondents regularised the service of Tilak Raj vide order dated 4.10.1991 (Annexure P-6). The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. He wants regularisation of his service in accordance with the policy framed and implemented by the Punjab Government from time to time and it is his grievance that his services deserve to be regularised particularly when servicces of his junior Tilak Raj had been ordered to be regularised. The respondents denied having regularised the service of Tilak Raj and averred that, in accordance with the orders dated 7.6.1991 of this Court, he had only been adjusted against the post of work charge T-Mate. Qua the representation made by the petitioner for regularisation of his services, it was averred that the representation filed by him is pending consideration with the respondent-Board. On account of that averment, the writ petition was averred to be premature. As none turned up on behalf of the parties to assist this Court inspite of the repeated fixtures, this Court has no option but to dispose of this matter pertaining to year 1992 by perusing the pleadings filed before this Court. It would appear to be beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner is senior to Tilak Raj as they came to be appointed on daily wages basis on 14.11.1984 and 14.1.1985 respectively. Though the averment by the petitioner that the service of Tilak Raj aforementioned had been regularised is not borne out by Annexure P-6 (which is the only documentation relied upon in the relevant behalf), In that view of things, there is no way the petitioner can be denied appointment as work charge T-Mate when his junior Tilak Raj had already been granted that benefit. Whether that benefit has been granted under the orders of the Court or not Civil Writ Petition No. 6248 of 1992 -3- **** is not material for determining the entitlement of the petitioner to that very placement. It being common ground that Tilak Raj is junior to the petitioner herein, the latter has to compulsively be given that benefit. Insofar as the pendency of representation is concerned, the averment to that effect appears in the written statement. The petitioner herein opted to refrain from filing a replication thereto. The averment aforementioned shall, thus, be deemed to have been uncontroverted on behalf of the petitioner. Though the long pendency of representation would be indefensible and illogical as well, the fact apparent from the record is that matter is engaging consideration of the respondent-Board. The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly with a direction to respondent-Board to positively dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner for regularisation of his service within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by it. While disposing of the representation, the Board shall keep in view the fact that certain benefit has already been extended to his junior Tilak Raj, may be on account of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.8504 of 1991. The respondents shall also keep in view the policy with regard to the regularisation of services which has been and is presently in vogue in the context. If any junior to the petitioner had been granted the benefit of regularisation, it will obviously be necessary for the respondents to extend that benefit to the petitioner. In view of the fact that no one appeared on behalf of the parties to assist this Court, a copy of this order shall be forwarded to the respondent-Board for compliance. September 22, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Writ Petition No. 6248 of 1992 -4- ****