IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No. 881 of 2009 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.9.2009.

Ashok Kumar and others

......Appellants

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

PRESENT:

Mr.K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the appellants.

****

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.

The appellants were recruited on ad hoc basis and had worked

for 14 years on the posts of Cook/Sweeper. Their services were terminated

vide order dated 19.8.2009.

2.

Learned Single Judge held that in view of judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v.

Uma Devi (3) and others 2006(4) SCC 1, no direction could be issued for

regularization or for allowing the appellants to continue till regular selection

made. It was further observed that appellants could apply in pursuance of

advertisement which had been issued and the respondents would consider

their claim on the basis of appellants having already worked for

considerable period.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in later

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UP State Electricity Board v.

Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007] 11 SCC 179, observation was made that

judgment in Uma Devi (supra) was in conflict with larger Bench Judgment

LPA No. 881 of 2009

[2]

in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another AIR 1978 SC 597.

Alternative prayer is for relaxation in age for fresh appointment.

4.

The contention raised cannot be accepted. The Judgment in

Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra), relied upon by learned counsel has

since been overruled by larger Bench in Official Liquidator v. Daya Nand

and others [2008] 10 SCC 1.

It is however, made clear that the appellants will be at liberty

to seek relaxation in age by making appropriate application to the

concerned authorities in accordance with law.

5.

The appeal is disposed of.

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

JUDGE

(DAYA CHAUDHARY)

September 11, 2009

JUDGE

raghav