IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 Date of decision: 30.07.2025 BABU RAM ......Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition had been filed for seeking modification of the order dated 23.08.2001 whereby the petitioner had been regularized w.e.f. 23.08.2001 instead of w.e.f. 01.04.1993 or 01.02.1996.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not raise any serious objection to the arguments advanced by the respondents that the petitioner would not fulfill the eligibility conditions for claiming regularization under the policy of 1993. He submits that the petitioner would nonetheless be entitled to claim consideration for regularization as per the 3. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had joined the respondent-department on 10.05.1986 and he worked till 15.10.1988 when his services were terminated. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Award dated 27.12.1990 was passed wherein the benefit of continuity of service had been extended to the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, the services of the petitioner were discontinued again on 03.02.1993 against which a Civil Suit was filed by the petitioner. The Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the benefit of continuity of service was extended vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.1999. He contends that after the reinstatement of the petitioner, a request for regularization was made, however, vide the impugned order, the benefit of regularization was given w.e.f. 23.08.2001 whereas the petitioner was fully eligible for the benefit of regularization under the policy of 1996. Thus, the Counsel prays that the aforesaid order of regularization should relate back to the above said date i.e. 01.02.1996 and the consequential benefits be extended to him.

4. Counsel for the respondent-State does not dispute that in view of the Civil Court decree extending continuity of service to the petitioner, he would be entitled to claim the benefits that would consequentially accrue and thus would become eligible under the regularization policy dated 5. The instant writ petition is hence allowed and the impugned order dated 23.08.2001 is modified. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.1996 and the benefits be given to the petitioner notionally w.e.f. the date of regularization in terms of the policy dated 01.02.1996 and actually w.e.f. 23.08.2001. The benefits admissible to the petitioner on the basis of the notional date of regularization shall be re-ascertained and the same shall be disbursed within a period of three months of a receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6. It is made clear that in case the re-calculated admissible dues of the petitioner are not released within the time as specified, the petitioner would become entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order. Such enhanced financial liability may be recovered from the officials responsible for the delay in disbursement.

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)

JULY 30, 2025 JUDGE

Vishal Sharma

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No