ORDER :

Aman Chaudhary. J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed for directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in terms of the policy dated 07.03.1996 issued by the Government of Haryana on 18.03.1996.

2. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioners were appointed as Beldar on muster roll in the year 1992, however, have not been regularised. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in a bunch of petitions allowed on 13.03.2024 titled as Ashish Sharma and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others in CWP-2158-2020, by taking into account submissions of either side and relying on the aforesaid judgment, relevant paras whereof read thus:

xx xx xx

25. Hence, the objections being raised by the respondents-State that the petitioners were not appointed against the regular sanctioned post or, there does not exist any regular post so as to regularize the services of the petitioners, is contrary to their own decision dated 21.12.2018 and cannot be accepted so as to deny the petitioners benefit of regularization of their services from the date services of employees junior to them have been regularized.

26. Even otherwise, once an employee has worked for more than a decade and the work of the said post exists, it is the duty of the respondents to create a post so as to allow the said employee to continue in service. Being a welfare State, the State has to take care of its employees rather than taking all kinds of objections so as to defeat the claim of the employees which is otherwise covered under the applicable regularization policy issued by the State itself Hence, the objections that there is no regular sanctioned post so as to regularize the services of the petitioners cannot be accepted.

27. Further, the said objection of the respondents-State with regard to the ground that there is no regular sanctioned post cannot also be accepted on the ground that in case any junior of the petitioners, has been regularized in service under the same regularization policy, the senior employee will ipso facto become entitled for regularization of his/her services from the date the services of his/her junior stood regularized subject to fulfillment of conditions as mentioned in the applicable regularization policy. Hence, once, in Balwinder Singh' case (Supra) it has already come on record that services of large number of employees who were junior to their colleagues, were regularized in a pick and choose manner and directions were given to regularize the services of senior employees on that ground itself by this Hon'ble Court while deciding the said case which judgment has attained finality, the respondents now cannot take a plea that the senior employees cannot be regularized in service on the ground of nonavailability of the sanctioned post. Once, the services of junior have been regularized the senior employee will ipso facto get the right for regularization of his/her services even if the said benefit has to be extended by creating a post for the very purpose.

28. The last objection which has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent-State is that after the judgment passed in Uma Devi's case (Supra), no benefit of regularization can be claimed.

29. It may be noticed that once, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prem Singh' s case (supra) after having noticed the position of lawsettled in Uma Devi's case (Supra) has carved out an exception so as to give directions to regularize services of employees who had continued to work for a period of more than 10 years and the said judgment has been brought into operation so as to give benefits of regularization to employees who have even superannuated without getting their services regularized, therefore, in the light of the same, the contention of the respondents that the benefit of regularization cannot be given in view of the judgment passed in Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be sustained and is accordingly rejected, moreover, it is a conceded fact that