IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.

214 CWP-6929-2020 (O&M).

Date of Decision: 24.02.2025.

PARDEEP KUMAR ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Seeking regularization of the services of the petitioner w.e.f.

31.01.1996 as per the policy dated 07.03.1996 and 18.03.1996, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed with the respondent department as a Mate on 01.01.1991 on daily wages and he continued as such and worked till 30.12.2000 (wrongly typed as 2010) when his services were illegally terminated. The order of termination of services of the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak after the conciliation proceedings failed in a settlement. The said reference was finally allowed in favour of the petitioner and vide award dated 08.02.2012, the following relief was granted: -

“14. In view of my finding on the foregoing issues, it is held that the services of the workman have been terminated illegally, therefore, he is held entitled to be re-instated on her previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 26.07.2003. In this way this reference is decided in favour of the workman and against the respondent/management. Award is passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room.”

3 The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 26.07.2003. He contends that the respondent-State challenged the said award by filing CWP No.20513 of 2012, however, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 03.10.2018 and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was upheld. The LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) No.367 of 2019 filed against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2019. The petitioner has now claimed regularization w.e.f. the date his juniors were regularized under the Regularization Policy of 1996. The claim submitted by the petitioner has been specifically pleaded in paras No.4 and 20 of the writ petition. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-

“4. Even some juniors of the petitioner namely Jai Parkash S/o Dalip Singh, R/o Village Bhaproda, Ranbir S/o Partap R/o Village Dubaldhan and Jai Parkash S/o Sh. Kali Ram were still working with the respondent department and even their services were regularized. The respondents failed to adhere to the procedure of "last come - first go". So, the reinstatement with full back wages along with continuity of service was prayed for.

xxx xxx xxx

20. That the petitioner made a representation in May, 2019 after the dismissal of the respondent's LPA vide P-3 and prayed for regularization of his services from the date he was entitled to i.e. 31.01.1996 and he also served a legal notice dated 17.07.2019 for regularization of his services from the date he became entitled or at least from the date when his juniors were regularized. Even thereafter the petitioner met the respondents and prayed for the regularization of his services, but all in vain except the bare assurances. The petitioner is running from pillar to post with no fault on his part. Therefore, he craves for the kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the legal notice dated 17.07.2019 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-9.”

4 Reliance is also placed on the averments made in para No.20 of the writ petition to contend that it was also specifically pleaded by the petitioner that he fulfilled the conditions as prescribed in the policy of 07.03.1996 and 18.03.1996 and that the specific pleadings of the petitioner about his juniors having been regularized and that he fulfilled the terms and condition