The main legal point established in the judgment is the regularization of the respondent's services under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1964, and the implications of the respondent's long-term employment at the petitioner's school.

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition being filed while challenging the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2010 by which the services of the respondent no.2 has been regularized as a Group-D employee with effect from 1st February, 1997 when the appointment letter was issued to him. Consequential benefits have also been directed to be released in his favour and directed to be released within one month of the issuance of the order.

2. Mr. H L Tiku, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that vide communication dated 19th August, 1992, the petitioner’s School requested the Chairman/Apeejay Education Society, for sanctioning the following posts

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has been posted on the post of peon in the category of Group –D employee. He was appointed as a regular worker vide order dated 1st February, 1997 with immediate effect.

4. Learned Senior counsel submits that the sanctioned post with the school was one post of peon and the same was filled up by one Tihuli Ram with effect from 1st October, 1992 vide letter issued by the Principal. Thereafter, vide letter dated 30th September, 1993, under the signatures of the President/Principal, he was appointed as a peon and nature of appointment was on probation basis for a period of one year with effect from 1st October, 1993 extendable from time to time up to a maximum period of two years as per the discretion of the Management.

5. Mr. Tiku, has further pointed out that respondent no. 2 initially was appointed as a casual labourer and thereafter, regularized by the communication dated 1st February, 1997 with immediate effect, and this fact is specifically mentioned that his regular services was to be under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1964.

6. The respondent no. 2 made representation for the first time vide representation dated 9th February, 2009 and submitted therein that he was working in the petitioner’s school from the last 16 years, but has not been made permanent. He approached to make his job permanent.

7. Learned counsel has submitted that the period of the respondent no.2 would be maximum with effect from 9th February, 2002 , but the case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of his representation, he was made permanent vide communication dated 6th May, 2010 with effect from 1st April, 2010.

8. The Director of Education after going through the case recorded it in its impugned in the school:- order dated 2nd February, 2010 on the basis of the documents in support of his claim, which reads as under :-

“Appointment Letter issued by the Principal of Apeejay School, Pitampura (vide Ref. No. APJ/PP/97/App. dated 1st February, 1997) in Shri Harender Kumar stating therein as under :

“It has been considered to appoint you as regular worker under Industrial Disputes Act, 1964 on the following terms and conditions.

Your appointment as a regular worker shall take effect from 1st February, 1997.

Receipts of Employees’ Provident Fund containing details of the contributions made by the employee and employer beginning with the year 1997-98.

An office order (no. APJ/PP/Loan/94 dated 21.11.94) sanctioning a loan of `. 613/- to Shri Harender Kumar which was scheduled to be recovered from his salary from the month of November, 1994.

Copies of attendance registers of various years.

Copies of representations-including the one forwarded by Chief Minister Office vide ref. no. CMR/05/3260 dated 14th November, 2005 to the Principal of Apeejay School – which he has allegedly given to the school authorities for regularization of his services.’’

9. The petitioner filed petition before this Court vide WP (C) No.10304/2009 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 22nd July, 2009 with directions to the respondent no.1/Director of Education to treat the legal notice as a representation and to effectively deal with it by passing a speaking order and also to hear the respondent no.2 herein.

10. I