Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DES RAJ versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Des Raj v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-6508-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5418 (9 August 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

C.W.P. No. 6508 of 2005

Date of Decision: August 21, 2006

Des Raj

...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. R.S. Mamli, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

M.M. KUMAR, J. (Oral)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 7.2.2005 (P-6). A further prayer has been made to issue directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with all consequential benefits from due date. It is appropriate to mention here that the petitioner joined with the respondent department in the year 1988 on daily wage basis. On the basis of the regularisation policies formulated by the State of Haryana, the petitioner earlier filed C.W.P. No. 8238 of 1999 in this Court seeking regularisation of his services, which was dismissed.

However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a detailed CWP No. 6508 of 2005

representation before the authorities who were to decide the same within a period of three months from the day the representation was made after taking into account all the relevant instructions and to pass a fresh speaking order. The respondents did not regularise the services of the petitioner and passed an order dated 5.12.2002, rejecting the case of the petitioner (P-5). The petitioner again approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 9126 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.9.2004 and the order reads as under:-

" The controversy raised by the petitioner relates to regularisation. It is not possible to examine the instant controversy in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that there are certain disputes on a vital factual aspect of the controversy i.e. the number of days during which the petitioner had rendered service while in the employment of the respondents.

In the facts and circumstances of the matter, we consider it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish further details to the respondents so as to substantiate the number of days during which he had discharged his duties (of course keeping in mind the cut off date envisaged under the relevant policy instructions). The needful be done through a representation within three months from today.

CWP No. 6508 of 2005

On the filing of such representation, the claim of the petitioner shall be reconsidered for regularisation by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant policy instructions read with judgments rendered by this Court in Tek Chand V. State of Haryana 2002(1) SCT 308 and Kavita Gandhi V. State of Haryana 1997(4) RSJ 760 and any other relevant judgment on the point, and a well reasoned speaking order shall be passed within three months from the date of submission of the aforesaid representation along with a certified copy of the instant order.

In case the petitioner is found entitled for regularisation, he shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of his regularisation. Till the final decision of the matter at the hands of the respondents, status quo shall be maintained qua services of the petitioner.

Disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the order be given/issued on payment of usual charges."

In compliance with the aforementioned order, the Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar Forest Division, Yamuna Nagar, passed a detailed speaking order dated 7.2.2005 (P-6) and rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

CWP No. 6508 of 2005

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no mandamus can now be issued for regularization of the services of the petitioner because of the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. Similar matter has come up before this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 7563 of 2005, decided on 25.4.2006) wherein similar arguments were raised and we have dismissed the same in view of law laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra).

Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(M.M.S. BEDI)

August 21, 2006 JUDGE

Pkapoor


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.