204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19457-2007 Date of decision: 03.02.2026 PURAN ....Petitioner Versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Karamjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside impugned order dated 19.12.2005(Annexure P-9) whereby the claims for regularisation of the services of the deceased father of the petitioner namely Bhagwan Dass and grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner were rejected. A prayer is also made for issuance of a writ of mandamus is sought directing the respondents to treat the deceased as deemed to have been regularized and further grant the petitioner compassionate appointment in lieu of the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the late father of the petitioner-Bhagwan Dass was engaged by the respondents on TMR/Daily Wage basis in April 1994 and had rendered continuous and uninterrupted service till his death in harness i.e. on 24.05.2002. However, after completing the requisite 240 days, the services of the deceased were illegally terminated in January 1995. Subsequently, pursuant to a binding settlement dated 31.05.1995 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the deceased was reinstated with continuity of service, thereby protecting his service tenure for all intents and purposes. It is further contended that the deceased rendered over eight years of continuous service with the respondents for over eight years, making him eligible for regularization under the applicable policy and the settled law.

3. Learned counsel argues that as a response to the representation dated 28.04.1997 served by the deceased, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division No.8, HUDA, Gurgaon recommended his case for regularisation vide communication dated 21.05.1997 (Annexure P-1 colly). In spite of this, the respondents unjustly denied the said benefit to the deceased. The case of the petitioner is also covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. through Prin.Secy, Agriculture and 3 others Vs. Kuldeep Thakur 2013 (3) All LJ 97 wherein the petitioner was ordered to be appointed on compassionate ground after taking into consideration the fact that the case of the deceased father of the petitioner for regularization was under process and he had unfortunately died before he could be regularized. The deceased passed away in harness on 24.05.2002, leaving behind the petitioner and other dependents in penury. The mother of the petitioner is physically disabled and thus, the petitioner bears the sole responsibility to provide for the family. However, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that his father was not a regularised employee, while similarly situated persons have been considered for the same concession.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that admittedly, the deceased was engaged on daily wage basis in April, 1994 and was not eligible for regularization under the Haryana Government Instruction dated 07.03.1996 and 18.03.1996. The said Instructions provide for grant of regularization to those daily wage employees who had completed three years service as on 31.01.1996, having worked for at least 240 days in a year where the break in service is not be more than 30 days at a time in a year. Since the petitioner had not even completed the first condition i.e. three years service as on 31.01.1996, he was not considered or regularisation and neither can he be deemed as such at this stage. Further, the policy dated 18.11.2005 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Government of Haryana regarding ex gratia financial assi