High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Gyani v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-4306-2006  RD-P&H 1703 (16 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP NO.4306 OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 21.3.2006
State of Haryana and others ..
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner.
J.S. Khehar, J. (oral)
The petitioner claims to have been originally inducted into the employment of the respondents as a Beldar on 1.6.1986. His services were, however, allegedly terminated on 31.3.1996. The petitioner impugned the action of the respondents in dispensing with his service by initiating proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute raised by the petitioner was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to the Labour Court). The Labour Court accepted the plea raised by the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with continuity in service with 50 percent back wages. This determination at the hands of the Labour Court was impugned by the respondents before this Court by filing CWP No.5495 of 2004. The CWP NO.4306 OF 2006 2
aforesaid writ petition, however, came to be dismissed on 1.4.2004.
Cumulatively on the basis of the service rendered by the petitioner from 1.6.1986 to 31.3.1996 and thereafter his reinstatement on the basis of the award of the Labour Court coupled with the decision rendered by this Court in CWP No.5495 of 2004, the petitioner asserts that his employment with the respondents must be deemed to be continuous and unbroken ever since his induction into service with effect from 1.6.1986. We find merit in the instant contention of the petitioner.
Based on his continuation in service with effect from 1.6.1986, the petitioner claims regularisation under the policy instructions issued by the State Government. In fact, for claiming regularisation the petitioner is stated to have issued a legal notice dated 6.1.2006 (Annexure P4) . It is, however, pointed out that no decision has been taken thereon till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be satisfied if the instant writ petition is disposed of by requiring respondent No.2 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD B&R Branch, Palwal, District Faridabad, to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the policy instructions of the State Government by passing a final order in furtherance of the legal notice issued by him on 6.1.1996 (Annexure P4).
In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner, we consider it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition by directing respondent No.2 i.e the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD B&R Branch, Palwal, District Faridabad, to take a final decision on the legal notice dated CWP NO.4306 OF 2006 3
6.1.2006 (Annexure P4)., by passing a well reasoned speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Disposed of accordingly.
Order dasti on payment of usual charges.
( J.S. Khehar )
( S.N. Aggarwal)
March 21, 2006. Judge
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.