2173^rd case

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP-13623-2018

Date of decision: 29.04.2022

Rajinder Kumar

…Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Dharamveer Phour, Advocate,

For the petitioner.

Mr. Sharan Sethi, Additional A.G., Haryana.

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner

from the date when his juniors were regularized with all consequential benefits

in terms of Policy dated 01.10.2003.

2.

Petitioner joined as P.R. Chowkidar on 26.04.1999 in Department

of Food and Supplies, State of Haryana. His services were later dispensed with

on 29.07.2004. However, vide an award dated 19.03.2012 in so far as it related

to the petitioner, Labour Court allowed the petitioner’s plea for reinstatement.

He was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 25%

backwages from the date of demand notice i.e. from 03.05.2005. Assailing the

Award, department filed four CWPs Nos. 20013 of 2012, 20030 of 2012, 20078

of 2012 and 20285-2012. CWP No.20285 of 2012 was dismissed by this Court

vide order dated 29.01.2013. After dismissal of above said CWP, the department

regularized the services of one Sushil Kumar, who is junior to the petitioner.

After regularizing the services of said Sushil Kumar, department filed LPA No.

VANDANA

2022.05.27 04:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

1522 of 2013, which was also disposed of as infructuous vide order dated

21.11.2013.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was

entitled to regularization of his services as per then applicable State Government

Policy dated October 1, 2003. Later on, his services were not regularized on the

ground that after the judgment of Uma Devi’s case, all the policies of

regularization have been withdrawn by the State. In the absence of any policy,

petitioner cannot/was not regularized, is the defense. He further submits that

services of similarly situated employees as well as of the petitioner’s juniors

have been regularized. After the decision of labour Court Award dated

19.03.2012, the petitioner submitted a number of representations followed by

legal notice dated 15.10.2017 (Annexure P-9), but to no avail. Hence,the instant

petition.

4.

Petition was filed in the year 2018. Notice of motion was issued on

28.05.2018. Despite opportunity no reply has been filed. Given that 4 years have

gone past and respondents were given repeated opportunities to do the needful,

right to defence is struck off. Factual assertion made in the writ petition, which

is duly supported by an affidavit, is deemed to be correct.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

case file.

5.

While rendering judgment in CWP-12961-1999 on 04.02.2022, I

opined as below:

19. Likewise in CWP 19793 of 2017 decided by this

Courtthe stand taken by the respondents was that at the relevant

date of entitlement for regularization, petitioner was not inservice.

It was noticed by this Court and relief of regularizationwas granted

to the petitioner therein by holding that continuityof service had

been granted to the petitioner by the labour Court by directing his

reinstatement. As already stated above,claim of the petitioner arises

VANDANA

2022.05.27 04:59

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

out of discriminatory treatmentmeted out to him, in as much as, his

juniors appointed in thesame District Office (Hisar depot) were

regularized before thepetitioner and regularization to the petitioner

was denied on theground that he stood transferred to another

District(Kurukshetra depot) on the date for regularization.

XXX

XXX

XXX

23. In the aforesaid premise, see