Roop Lal And ORS. v. State Of Pb. And ORS.

KUMAR MANOJ 2016.02.03 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20717 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Order: 01.02.2016 Roop Lal and Ors.

....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anshul Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA,J (ORAL) C.M.No.17252 of 2012 Civil Miscellaneous is disposed of with the consent of counsel for both the parties and the main petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

CWP No.20717 of 2006 Petitioners, who are 65 in number, seek quashing of the orders whereby their services were not regularized and, therefore, pray for regularization.

Admittedly, the petitioners were working as part time Sweepers in various Government Schools in the districts of State of Punjab under different Education Officers, who have been impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 14.

In the written statement filed, it has been submitted that 24 petitioners have been regularized and the claim of 22 petitioners has been rejected and that the claim of remaining 12

#2# petitioners is under consideration and their services will be regularized on availability of vacant post as per their respective seniority. It is further averred that seven petitioners do not belong to the department of the answering respondent. Specific orders have been appended as Annexure R.1.

It has been specified that services of petitioner Nos.1,4,8,9,11,12,13,18,23,24,25,28,30,32,33,36,40,45,46,47,57,6 0,62 and 63 have been regularized. Similarly, claim of petitioner Nos.2,6,10,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,26,27,34,33,42,43,48,50,51,54,58 ,59 and 61 has been rejected as they do not fulfil the conditions of regularization.

Similarly, services of petitioner Nos.29,31,35,39,41,44,49,52,53,55,56 and 64 could not be regularized as there was no vacant post in their districts and they have to wait for their turn for regularization of their services. It is further stated that petitioner Nos.3,5,7,14,37 and 22 belong to department of Panchayati Raj in the Zila Parishad. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Education Officer, Amritsar, Nawanshahr, Hoshiarpur, Gurdaspur and Kapurthala to pass appropriate orders in the cases of the petitioners and convey it to those, whose cases have been rejected or kept pending for the purposes of regularization so that they could be at liberty to challenge the said orders in accordance with law by demonstrating to this Court that they have been wrongly ignored and similarly situated persons have

#3# been granted the benefit accordingly.

Necessary exercise be effected within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of.

February 01, 2016 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) manoj JUDGE