Davinder Mohan v. State Of Punjab & Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 776 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.02.2023 Devinder Mohan .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present:
Mr. A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** PANKAJ JAIN , J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed seeking writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as he is continuously working for last more than 21 years. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk with respondent on 22.05.1995. His services were terminated w.e.f. 01.04.1997. He raised Industrial Dispute which was referred before the Labour Court vide Reference No. 219 of 2001. Vide Award dated 19.01.2012, the same stands answered in favour of the petitioner holding as under:
"In view of my findings on the aforementioned issues, instant reference is answered against the Management and in favour of the workman/claimant. The termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 01.04.1997 are set aside. He is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. Beside, it he is also entitled to the back wages to the extent of 25%. He is further directed to submit his joining report with the Management within one month from the publication of the award. Management / respondents are also directed to make the payment of back wages within 3 months from the date of publication of the award. In case, payment is not made within
stipulated period, workman/claimant shall be entitled to the interest @ 6% PA from the date of service of the demand notice i.e 02.02.1998. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
2.
Thus, the respondent cannot deny the fact that the petitioner has been in continuous employment since 22.05.1995. Petitioner relies upon Policy decision taken by State of Punjab dated 15.12.2006 whereby the State decided to regularize the services of the employees as one time measure subject to certain conditions which have been enumerated as under: "While considering the cases for regularisation of the services of such irregularly appointed workers/employees as a one time measure, the following guidelines are to be followed in letter and spirit, namely:- i) the employee should have worked for not less than 10 (Ten) years as on 10.4.2006 without the intervention of the orders of the Courts or Tribunals against duly sanctioned posts:
ii) the employee fulfills the minimum basic qualifications for the post against which he was appointed;
iii) it shall be certified by the competent authority that no supernumerary posts were created to retain the employees in service, when the persons were appointed on regular basis; and iv) it shall be the duty of the Administrative Department that while considering the case of each employee, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the aforesaid case are implemented in letter and spirit. It shall be ensured that there should be no further by passing of Constitutional requirements and regularizing or making permanent those, who were not appointed as per the said constitutional scheme.
3.
Apart from the above, the worker/employee concerned should also fulfill the following requirements; that: a) he possessed qualifications for the post at the time of original appointment and satisfied all eligibility conditions as per service rules;
b) the work and conduct of the worker/employee through out has been satisfactory;
c) a medical fitness certificate and documentary proof of date of birth as per standing instructions shall be obtained, if not obtained at the time of extending his appointment;
d) his antecedents should be got verified from the Police Department as per Government instructions, if it was not done earlier; and e) the regularisation shall take effect from the date of orders to be issued and after determining Inter-seseniority amongst the employees, regularised under this policy, with reference to continuous service, and they shall be placed below his employees, last appointed on regular basis after following proper procedure." 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that in view of the Policy decision having been taken by State of Punjab and the same being applicable to its instrumentalities in terms of P-7, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularization of services under the said policy. 4.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner being ineligible and the Policy of 2006 cannot claim regularization. Reference is being made to the covenant as contained in Clause (2)(i) to contend that the employee should have worked for not less than 10 years as on 10.04.2006 without the intervention of the order of the Court or Tribunal. The petitioner being beneficiary of the Award passed by
the Industrial Tribunal dated 19.01.2012 cannot claim to have worked continuously for 10 years.
5.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6.
Admittedly, the petitioner was ordered to be re-instated and was awarded continuity of service by the Award passed by the Tribunal. The said Award inter se between the rights of the parties has become final.
!! !!
!!
""#!
$
% & &
' ( )
"*+
,
& & $
- .
/ $
0
1
"+ ' 2
% 3 & &
0 4
"**5 "6 4 "**5 "
7
899:
"58#
":
)
899
3 8* 7
89"" 89* 5 . -
-
) (
;- < = 86 7
"*9
"9 "9 ) "**5 / "9 ) 8995
2 % 3 !
!
"
!
# $ %& '()*!!+ ; >=
/ &/ & ? "9 @ < ' ( )
"*+
/ 1 / >A B ! < 1
, 1 2 % % 1
/ /
!
1 ! %
' ( )
"*+
,
< $ & &
& & & &
1 % ! 1 1
! < ,% -%. / 01 '1 '
%
2- 3 !
-& (!!
*+C; D E >=
% <
/
$
"+ ! D E
C
%
& & & &
,
1 2 % & &
/
& &
,
/ !
& & $ (
- 2
%
0 &
& & & /
:9*
- !
! 2 %
-(
& & !
"+
< "+
2 6 # 1
!! !!
!!
58 ) ' 1 '!
'
</ E 3
4 F < 4 $
5%'
/6
% 7!/
(8 ! 8
< 3 ; .& 4 7 )E</ . , 7 . , & < = :+ !
!
:+D 1
,
/
/00 /
@ '
$
/
/ ) "+ @
/
G
G .
/ $
/ ' 0,
1 / ) "+ # ' 1
) "+
> ; = 5: # / 1
#1 :+ 1
!
1 '
.$59$
! $
0 :!!) 1 ,&'";-
1
5+ .3 ;:= 1 /
.F
3
1 ,
<
3 ;:=F ! .F ;:+= / # ' # , '
# '
1
1 /
@ / 0 .F # 1 #< . F ' 1
) "+
> 5H . 7
"+ 1
< 1 /
#
/
"+) "+
) < ) # 55 ) <
$ '
"+
& & <
"+ 7
/ 5 . ' ' 1
-
<
'''
56 < 7 < . F :+
3 (G1E /
<
)
< 7 .F
#
. < . F
! 3 # ' 4F
<
.F 5* #
$
/
)
<
#
/ ,
.
,
/
' #<
@ ' (
#
<
#' ( )
. ' $ ! < /.1 < 1< % ;89"9= :<"*8 / ) / 1 .1< # & ! :9 :" !
:9D
#
$
& 1
$/ ' /
/
1
# /
0 /
/
#
:" '
1
# ( < 1 /
> 9 # '
1 " '
' 47G 7
D E , . / <<- %( ))::!!
8+ # 1
:"
1
# + ;= - !
D E 1
!1 7
! 1 3 E 3 < ) :"
:"#
? '
;"= # 1
%
/
/ #
/
/ # #
F
# % ;8=# I
#
? ) , # <3 ;:=;=)
<
? , ?
! 1 % F"99"89"" 56 /
1 ;:=;= ' ? /
?
1
!
;+=;= #
0#
1
!
#
1 % <3
,-,( /
!
;+=;=% !
I
I
'
) "* 8" ) "+>; = 8# ) "*8" ) "+ '
'D
E ; = "+
.& 7# ! !
1
"+ # 1
1
#
&
# /
$
/
,
1 F / :D
1 1
< > * #
( "$24 )
8 =
%> 8"9"89"H (
: )
"*96"**H# :"9H"**5
# :"9*899:
3 9""9899:
$ )
9""9899: #
&
9""9899: #
# <
!
"
# $%&
$ '
!
# $ %&
($ + '
!!
!!
!!> "9 '
1 < #1 ' # G 9: "" F
"**H $ 12.
Disposed off accordingly.
07.02.2023 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dinesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes