IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) CWP-10150-1999 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 11.03.2025 Raj Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (105/2) CWP-3042-2002 (O&M)

Smt. Satya Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate with Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-10150-1999.

Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-3042-2002.

Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. By this order, two petitions are being decided, which involve the same question of law.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-10150-1999 titled as Raj Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming the benefit of regularization of their services in view of the Instructions dated

23.01.1995.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were appointed by the respondent-State on work charge basis starting from the year 1974 onwards till 1982 and they have worked for more than two decades with the respondents hence, the petitioners were entitled for regularization of their service before they attained the age of superannuation so that they can get the pensionary benefits, which is must for an employee who has worked for over two decades with the respondents but their services have not been regularized, which is causing prejudice to them.

5. The respondents have appeared and initially contested the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were working on a particular project and as there were no regular posts, the services of the petitioners could not be regularized and further, once the petitioners were working on a particular project, they can only be allowed to continue in service till the project survives and after the completion of the project, the petitioners’ services are to be dispensed with hence, the benefit of regularization of services being sought is not admissible. However, in the reply filed, the factum that the petitioners have worked with the respondents for over two decades, has been conceded.

6. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have filed an affidavit, wherein, they have stated that in CWP No. 10150 of 1999, the services of all the petitioners except four petitioners i.e. petitioners No. 3, 6, 14 and 19 have already been regularized. With regard to the four petitioners, it has been stated that no regular post was available for regularization of their services hence, their services have not been regularized.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 3042 of 2002 submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3777 of 1986 and was petitioner No. 16, namely, Hoshiar Singh son of Pannu Ram in the said petition. In the said writ petition, the statement was made by the State on 10.10.2002 that the services of the petitioners have already been regularised but, no benefit of the said regularization was extended to the husband of the petitioner before he unfortunately died and even as of now, no pensionary benefit is being extended to the petitioner, which is causing prejudice hence, the prayer of the petitioner is for directing the respondents to grant the benefit of regularization of services of the husband of the petitioner along with arrears as well as the family pension and all other consequential benefits.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not been able to dispute the said factual averment made qua the claim of the petitioners as recorded here-in-before.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

10. As of now, the question which survives for determination is whether, the four petitioners i