JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

This Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 12.03.2004 (Annexure P-3) and also quashing the Impugned order dated 06.03.2017 (P-9) whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected without considering the Judgment of the high court and the judgment of the Supreme Court and also without considering the judgment dated 19.08.2004 passed by the High Court in CWP No. 1998 of 2003 because the petitioner was similar situated person passed by the Superintending Engineer P.W.D Hisar i.e. respondent no. 3, whereby the services of the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.02.1996 and also quashing the order dated 06.03.2017 (P-9) passed by the respondent no.2 i.e Engineer in Chief Haryana, Public Health Department, Panchkula.

The conspectus of Facts:

2. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily wage/muster roll basis on 01.05.1993. Their work and conduct throughout remained satisfactory and no adverse remark or complaint was ever recorded against them.

3. The State Government of Haryana issued a regularization policy dated 07.03.1996 for work-charged/casual/daily rated employees who had completed five years of service as on 31.01.1996, subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The said policy was subsequently modified vide circular dated 18.03.1996, whereby the requirement was reduced to completion of three years of service as on 31.01.1996.

4. Despite being eligible under the said policy, the services of the petitioner was regularized by the respondent-department only with effect from 01.10.2003 instead of 01.02.1996.

5. Similarly situated employees filed CWP No. 1998 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court on 19.08.2004 (Annexure P-4), directing regularization with effect from 01.02.1996 along with all consequential benefits. The challenge laid by the State of Haryana up to the Supreme Court by way of SLP 4216-2005 failed, and the Civil Appeal NO. 1372-2007 was dismissed on 05.08.2015 (Annexure P- 5). In compliance thereof, the respondent-department regularized the services of those petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with monetary benefits.

6. After dismissal of the State’s appeal, the petitioner submitted representations dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-7) seeking similar relief.

7. However, the claim of the present petitioner was rejected on the ground of an interim stay relating to the regularization policy dated 16.06.2014, though the petitioner’s claim arises under the policy of 1996.

8. Aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment and denial of parity, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with all consequential benefits.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage/muster roll basis on 01.05.1993 and had completed the requisite qualifying service as per the regularization policy dated 07.03.1996 as modified on 18.03.1996, having worked for more than 240 days in each year and being in service on 31.01.1996.

10. It is argued that the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized with effect from 01.02.1996, but the respondent-department arbitrarily regularized them only w.e.f. 01.10.2003, which is illegal and contrary to the policy.

11. Learned counsel submits that similarly situated employees were granted regularization w.e.f. 01.02.1996 pursuant to the judgment dated 19.08.2004 passed in CWP No. 1998 of 2003, which has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The benefit of the said judgment has also been extended to other similarly situated persons, including Rajesh Kumar and Ramu Sharma pursuant to judgements of this court.

12. It is further contended that rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground of stay of the policy dated 16.06.2014 is wholly misconceived, as the petition