IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (216-2) CWP-19826-2002 Date of Decision : July 29, 2025 Kuldip Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondent (216) CWP-4839-2011 (O&M)

Kuldeep Singh (since deceased) through his LRs .. Petitioners Versus Executive Engineer, Riggin Division, R.S.D. Shahpur Kandi, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners in both petitions.

Mr. Rahul Rampal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as both the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In CWP-19826-2002, the petitioner Kuldeep Singh is seeking benefit of regularization of his services which benefit has been granted to the other similarly situated employees but the same has been denied to him on the ground that during the period the said benefit was extended to the other similarly situated employees, petitioner was not in service as he was reinstated in service at a later point of time.

3. Further prayer of the petitioner is that after reinstatement of services of the petitioner, he should have been treated as regular employee along with other similarly situated employees and should have been given the retiral benefits admissible to him.

4. And in CWP-4839-2011, the prayer of the petitioner is that he be granted the benefit of leave encashment which benefit is admissible to regular employee, who retires on attaining the age of superannuation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefit of regularization in service is being denied to the petitioner by the respondents on the ground that petitioner Kuldeep Singh was working on a class-III post and had worked on the post of Workshop Operator upto the age of 60 years being a work-charge employee and therefore, now after working on the said post till the age of reitrement i.e. 60 years, he cannot turn around so as to claim the benefit of regularization of service, which benefit in case is to be granted, the petitioner should have had been retired on attaining the age of

58 years, which aspect cannot be undone as of now.

6. Certain facts needs to be noticed for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

7. Before giving the facts qua the claim of the petitioner No.1. Kuldeep Singh, as noticed hereinbefore, in CWP No.19826 of 2002, except petitioner Kuldeep Singh, the benefit of regularization was granted in favour of all the other employees.

8. Petitioner No.1 namely Kuldeep Singh was appointed on 07.11.1979 as a Workshop Operator which is a class-III post. On 01.06.1983, his services were terminated and the said termination was made subject matter before the Labour Court. Vide Award dated 12.05.1999 (Annexure P-1), the termination of the services of the petitioner Kuldeep Singh was held to be bad by the Labour Court and he was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity with the lump sum back wages of Rs.5,000/-.

9. On 12.07.1999, the petitioner submitted his joining report but ultimately, the petitioner was allowed to join in service on 26.05.2000. As, upon reinstatement in service, the benefit of continuity in service and fixation of his basic pay was not being given to the petitioner Kuldeep Singh therefore, an application was filed by him under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which application was allowed vide order dated 06.05.2003 granting the benefit of the wages for the period the petitioner was asking for.

10. As the State of Punjab had issued a policy for regularization of service in the year 1996, the claim of the petitioner was not being considered by the respondents in accordance to the said policy on the ground that he was not in service in the year 1996 when the benefit of regularization, in accordance to the