The main legal point established is that the 01.10.2003 policy for regularization applied to the Zila Parishad, and fulfillment of service criteria could be inferred from the payment of full back wages during the period of reinstatement.

Judgment

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.

In the present petition, grievance of the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of regularization of his services has been declined by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not recruited through Employment Exchange and regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-13) will not be applicable upon the department of Panchayat Simiti.

2. Certain facts need to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Peon with the respondentdepartment in the year 1995. While working on the said post his services were terminated on 15.04.1997. Said termination of the services of the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court and vide award dated 04.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court, petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity along with 20% back wages.

4. Feeling dissatisfied on account of grant of only 20% back wages, the petitioner filed writ petition being CWP-12845-2000 and this Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 modified the grant of 20% back wages to that of 100% back wages. Against the said decision, the respondents filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which appeal also came to be dismissed on 09.07.2002. Thereafter, petitioner was reinstated in service keeping in view the direction given by this Court with continuity in service and 100% back wages.

5. After reinstatement of the petitioner in service, respondents issued a policy dated 01.10.2003 (P-13) for regularization of services of the employees. Petitioner was working on Class-IV post and as per the said regularization policy, class-IV employee, who had rendered 03 years of service as on 30.09.2003 and had worked for 240 days in each year, the said employee was entitled for regularization of his/her services. The petitioner raised the claim for regularization of his services under the said policy but no such benefit was extended to him and ultimately the claim of the petitioner was rejected.

6. The petitioner then filed CWP-22782-2012, which was decided by this Court on 10.02.2014 wherein, a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as to whether or not, he is entitled for regularization of his service under the policy dated 01.10.2003.

7. In pursuance to the said direction, the respondents have passed impugned order dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure P/8) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services, which order is under challenge in the present petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the ground which has been taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service is that policy dated 01.10.2003 is not applicable upon the Zila Parishad. The second objection taken by the respondents is that petitioner was not appointed after following due procedure as envisaged under the rules governing the service hence, services of the petitioner cannot be regularized.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasons given by the respondents for not granting the benefit in question are incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the department of Zila Parishad comes under the department of Panchayat and post on which the petitioner was working has been sanctioned by the Government itself, any policy issued by the Government ipso-facto will be applicable upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no separate policy needed by the Zila Parishad concerned for regularization of the services of the employees.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is no condition in the policy that initial appointment of an employee should be done by following due procedure as envisaged under law before the same could be regularized as condition of only 03 years service upto 30.09.2003 with 240 working days in each year was re