Principles of natural justice, retrospective application of administrative instructions, and interpretation of "break in service" in the context of regularisation of daily wage employees.

1. This petition is being decided alongwith C. W. Ps. Nos.8714, 8717, 8716 and 8718 of 1994 because a common question of law is required to be decided in all these petitions.

2. Petitioners in all these petitions are employees of Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short the HUDA ). All the petitioners were initially appointed on daily wages. Petitioner Anand Kumar was appointed as Beldar on daily wages with effect from 1.11.1987. Petitioner Nar Bahadur was appointed as Chowkidar in June, 1981, petitioner Krishan Lal was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in July, 1984, petitioner Prithvi Singh was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in November, 1987 and petitioner Satyavan was appointed as Keman on daily wages in August, 1986. All the petitioners continue to work on daily wages. Services of the petitioners were regularised by the competent authority on the basis of policy decision contained in the circular dated 27.5.1993 issued by the Government of Haryana and which was adopted and applied by the respondent-HUDA. Order for regularisation of service was passed on 17.8.1993 in the case of petitioner Anand Kumar. Service of Nar Bahadur was regularised by order dated 10.9.1993. In the case of petitioner Krishan Lal order for regularisation was issued on 29.9.1993. In the case of Prithvi Singh this order was issued on 10.9.1993 and the service of Satyavan was regularised by order dated 30.9.1993. In each case the competent authority had considered the nature of service rendered by the petitioner as also the length of his service. However, after about 8/9 months of the date of regularisation of services of all the petitioners, respondent No.2 issued order dated 27.6.1994 cancelling the orders of regularisation of services of each of the petitioners on the ground that there was a break of more than one month at a time in a year in the services of the petitioners.

3. Petitioners have challenged the order of deregularisation of their services on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice, and the Government instructions as also on the ground that persons similarly situated have been regularised in service. In each of the petitions, the petitioner has given the reason for interruption in his service. Anand Kumar has stated that he was sick during the months of March and April, 1989 and therefore he could not attend duty for a period of 60 days. Similar statement has been made by the other petitioners.

4. In their written replies, which are identical in all the petitions, respondents have pleaded that Government instructions contained in letter dated 27.5.1993 were conveyed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, vide Endorsement dated 4.8.1993. In accordance with these instructions it was decided to regularise the work-charged and daily wage employees of HUDA, who had completed 5 years service as on 31.3.1993. Orders for regularisation ,of services of work-charged/daily wage employees were issued on the basis of the lists furnished by the concerned Heads of Offices and which were got verified from the concerned superior officers. While admitting that order for regularisation of service of each of the petitioner had been issued, the respondents have further stated that in the statements furnished to respondent No.2 by the respective superiors, details about the break in service of each of the petitioners were not given. Subsequently, the Government issued circular letter dated 18.3.1994 which was conveyed by the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide Endorsement dated 1.4.1994 and it was clarified that those daily-wage employees who had worked for 5 years and who had completed 240 days of service without break of more than one month are entitled to be regularised. In the light of this policy decision, respondent No.2 issued the impugned order. Contention of the respondents is that their action is in consonance with the directions issued by the Government of Haryana and, therefore, they cannot be charged with