Amarjit Kaur And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others
!" "#$%$&'
( )*$!+ ,) &- &!.") "!$!$&")% /")%,% 0! !" ,&* 1 &-!.")% "%2&-"&!%
!
!!
"# "$ $"% ($#)
+ * *
!
-*
.
*
-* -/ !
-*
! *
-
(
-* -/ !
- 1 * +!
(- "$ %%2
3 -!
+
$ - * $"" !
!
4 + $# "
$""5 (#)
- *
+ +
+
6
! * - -
+
/ +!
7 !
+
-
+
(
(-
-*
- *
6 /!
+
!
($)
6
! -- - * !
+
+
!
' 3
!
93
55%:
$""2 -!
* + - "% ";
$""% 9( <
=
$""%
! * $""
> -
- / !
*
/
* $;
"8 $";
+
3
!
93
$82" $"2
($8)
9 - + - ! "# "$ $"% ($#) !
- ! +/!
+/(!
-
! "# "$ $"% ($#)
!
- * + *
6
($) ?- $"":
!
+/(!
+
= !
!
($) ?- $"": - -* /*
! !
7 -
%
* +!
7 - * $""
+ -
#
- - (
7 - -
/ 6
- / * $""5 ( $) -
> + -
7
+
- - +
($)
>
!
!
9 (&) * -
!
"(ii) Each department may prepare a list of workcharged, daily wage and other categories of workers who have completed 3 years service and these lists may be updated from time to time. The lists should be prepared strictly as per seniority."
+ +
+/(!@* +! ! +/ + -
- - - -!
+ -* -
!
- -*
!
/!
+ +!
, * - - + - * !
* $""5 *
6!
7 +
($) 6 * +
(!
-
/
+
- !
/ * - !
($) *
!
+ "$ %%2 - "$
! -
(- * $""5 * 6
.
-
!- 9 93
;25$ %%%
"#
$
%& '#()* # "5 $"" + - > + > "
:
+ *
7
"# +
#,!* - *
( ? < ! + -* - "
! -*
- ! * -
! :
!-
( "5. The case of the petitioner is that her husband is being deprived of the benefit of regularisation of his services on the basis of the policy dated 7th March, 1993 Annexure R)1 which lays down that before the services could be regularised it was obligatory on the part of the employee to complete 10 years of service on or before the 31st August, 1992. The stand of the respondent) authorities is that since the husband of the petitioner joined his service as fitter coolie on 4th November, 1986 and that he had not completed 10 years of service on 31st August, 1992, rather on 3rd November, 1996, therefore, he was not entitled to be regularised as per the policy dated 7th May, 1993. We are not in a position to accept this contention of the respondents because, in our opinion, the LAW FINDER Submitted By: Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications (P) Ltd. underlying object of the policy letter dated 7th May, 1993 was to regularise the services of those workers who had completed 10 years of service and in order to achieve that object the administration desired that cut off date should be given which was 31st August, 1992. This policy was of one time policy. The State cannot deprive regularisation of services of those temporary workers who had completed 10 years of service after 31st August, 1992.
;
the State Government, therefore, his services could not be regularised. This stand of the respondents, in our opinion, is untenable, as we have stated above that the object of the policy dated 7th May, 1993 was that a worker must have completed 10 years of service. Shri Pritam Singh had completed 10 years of service before his death. So much, so his case at one point of time was sent for regularisation which was not approved for the reason that in the year 1996 no other policy was declared after the policy decision of the year, 1993. Resultantly, we hold that the husband of the petitioner was entitled to be regularised on completion of 10 years service w.e.f. 3rd November, 1996 and we order accordingly.
6. The second point for determination in this writ petition is whether petitioner Smt. Beant Kaur deserves to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground or not. We dispose of this Writ petition by giving directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground subject to her eligibility and necessary order shall be passed by respondent No. 4 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs."
-
+ +
*
!
!
* - - +
!
/!
+
!
*
*
> * !
+/ !
* +! !
+/ !
- - - -
A +
+/ '-* +
* +
7
- +/
!
!
! !-
>
-* +/!
- !
"
- ! *
+
+ +/ %
!
0B - 9 7 + !
9
:;%2 $"% '
$
%&
'-
- %
*
"$ "% $"%
!
3 -*
/ * -
+/(!
6 - -
!
!-
( "35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30)40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work)charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered formore than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees
% who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work)charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."
!
+ +
0B - 9 7
! '-* + - - /!
+ +
0B - 9 7 ' +
#,!
!
+ - + -
+ + !*
= 6!
/!
+ ($) - - -
=
- + + - - * +
"
6!
-
+ +/
! - - * +
* -
* +
- +
!
3 + -
2)$3 4
0500 kanchan
√ Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No √ Whether reportable : Yes/No