Satish Kumar v. Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd & ORS

CWP No. 10305 of 2016 and connected cases -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 1.

CWP No. 10305 of 2016 Satish Kumar ....Petitioner versus U.H.V.P.N.L & ors.

..Respondents 2.

CWP No. 10306 of 2016 Mahender Singh ....Petitioner versus U.H.V.P.N.L & ors.

..Respondents 3.

CWP No. 10307 of 2016 Dilbag Singh ....Petitioner versus U.H.V.P.N.L & ors.

..Respondents Date of decision:-23.05.2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. S.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioners in all three cases.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** RITU BAHRI , J.

This order shall dispose of the above three petitions as common question of facts and law are involved in all these petitions wherein prayer is for quashing of word 'adhoc', word 'purely temporary' in para 2 and condition vii of para 3 i.e the above appointment as LDC (adhoc) is subject to the GAURAV ARORA 2016.07.08 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document condition that you will qualify the type test either in Hindi or Englist at the

CWP No. 10305 of 2016 and connected cases -2prescribed speed of 25/30 w.p.m within two years in four chances from the date of joining of duty, failing which your annual increment will be stopped. Your services will be regularized from the date of passing of the above prescribed type test from the offer of appointment letter dated 23.03.1999 (P1) in C.W.P No. 10305 of 2016, appointment letter dated 30.01.2001 (P-1) in CWP No. 10306 of 2016 and appointment letter dated 29.03.2000 (P-1) in CWP No. 10307 of 2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents failed to held type test within two years of the joining of the service and hence the services of the petitioner could not be regularized after completion of 02 years of service.

The argument of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the above contention, the petitioners filed CWP No. 25551 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2014 by giving a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months.

Once this Court had given direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed, as learned counsel for the petitioners has informed the Court that the services of the petitioners have been regularized. Once the services of the petitioners have been regularized after completion of 2 years of service, no case is made out to set aside the conditions mentioned in the appointment letters. The writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of any merits. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 23.05.2016 G Arora GAURAV ARORA 2016.07.08 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document