Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ATAULA versus N.K.JAIN, IAS & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ataula v. N.K.Jain, IAS & Ors - COCP-530-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5095 (1 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHADIGARH.

C.O.C.P. No.530 of 2006

Date of Decision:- 17.8.2006.

Ataula

.........Petitioner.

Versus

Shri N.K.Jain, IAS and others

......Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present:- Mr.J.S.Mannipur, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Narinder Sura, AAG Haryana.

****

SURYA KANT J.(ORAL)

JUDGMENT

Short affidavit of Satya Bhan IFS, Divisional Forest Officer, Nuh, District Mewat, Haryana, filed on behalf of respondent No.3, is taken on record.

The petitioner filed CWP No.1961 of 2003 which was disposed of by this court on 1.9.2005 with a direction to the respondents to re- consider his case (for regularization of services) in the light of the Govt.

policy as also the Full Bench judgment of this court in Tek Chand and others versus State of Haryana and others 2001(3) RSJ 604. The case was required to be considered within a period of four months.

In purported compliance of the aforesaid order, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, passed an order dated 14.2.2006 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner's claim for regularization of services has been again turned down.

Alleging that the petitioner's case for regularization of his services is not in consonance with the order dated Sept 1, 2005 passed by this court as the mandate of Full Bench judgmentt in Tek Chand case (Supra), has been completely over looked, this contempt petition has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The main contention of Mr.Mannipur learned counsel for the petitioner is that previously the case of the petitioner for regularization of services was turned down on the ground that in the year 1995-96 he did not work for 240 days. It was thereafter that he filed CWP No.1961 of 2003 which was disposed of on 1.9.2005 with a direction to the respondents to re-consider his case. However, the petitioner's case has been again turned down on the same plea that he has not worked for 240 days in the year 1995-96. Referring to the previous order and the latter one, it is contended by Mr. Mannipur that in both the orders the petitioners has been shown to have worked from April 2005 to January 2006 and thus the working days of months of January and February of that year are being erroneously excluded.

It is also argued that in the year 1994-95 the period of January and February 1995 has been included and the working days of the petitioner have been inflated to 296 days as against the requirement of 240 days. It is, thus, summed up that if the days for which the petitioner worked for January and February 1995 are excluded from the year 1994-1995 and are included in latter year of 1995-96, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner worked for 240 days in the year 1995-96 also. On the other hand Mr. Narinder Sura, learned state counsel contends that in the months of January and February 1995 the petitioner did not work at all and this fact is duly noticed in the previous order dated 30.4.2002 (Annexure P3). He has also referred to the averments made to this effect in paragraph 2 of the affidavit of Sh.Satya Bhan,IFS. It is, thus, contended that since the petitioner did not work for the months of January and February 1995 it is immaterial whether the said period is included in the year 1995-96.

On the other hand Mr. Maanipur, argues that the petitioner has sufficient documentary evidence to show that he did work in the months of January and February 1995.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the question as to whether petitioner worked in the months of January and February 1995 or not is a seriously disputed question of fact and the respondents have come up with a positive stand that the petitioner did not work during that period, it is difficult to infer that they have deliberately disobeyed the orders dated Sept 1,2005passed by this court. At the same time the petitioner's contention that he worked for some days in the months of January and February 1995 also cannot be brushed aside lightly.

In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach an appropriate Forum to establish that he did work in the months of January and February 1995 and if those working days are included in the year 1995-96, his total working days shall not be less than 240 days.

Rule discharged.

Aug 17,2006. ( SURYA KANT )

Reema. JUDGE


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.