Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREM BAHADUR versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prem Bahadur v. State of Haryana - CWP-8994-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4829 (27 July 2006)

CWP No. 8994 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.8994 of 2005

Date of decision 7.8.2006

Prem Bahadur .. petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

PRESENT: Mr.Gobind Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana.

M.M.Kumar, J.

The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing clause no. D(8) of the policy/ instructions dated 10.2.2004 (Annexure P.3) postulating that engagement of employees with daily wage Group C & D employees would be regularised who were engaged before 31.1.1996 if they fulfil all other conditions. A further direction has been sought for quashing order dated 11.2.2004 ( Annexure P.1) whereby the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services have been rejected on the ground of non fulfillment of afore-mentioned condition.

In response to notice of motion, the respondents have filed the written statement taking a preliminary objection that the claim made by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and CWP No. 8994 of 2005 2

others 2006(4) SCC 1. In the afore-mentioned judgement various propositions have been laid down including the proposition that the daily wage employee or adhoc employee cannot be offered permanent employment unless it is shown that the competing claims of all those who were entitled to be considered were given opportunity to apply and compete for the post in respect of which regularisation has been claimed. We have have also considered numerous submissions made by learned counsel at length in the case of Rajinder Kumar v.State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 7563 of 2005 decided on 25.4.2006). Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere. Moreover, even the cause of the petitioner does not survive after the opinion expressed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Uma Devi (supra). There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed.

(M.M.Kumar)

Judge

(M.M.S.Bedi )

7. 8.2006 Judge okg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.