Bir Singh and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in this application is for allowing the present writ petition in the light of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 5532 of 2000 tilted as Kuldeep Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, decided on 19.12.2011 (Annexure-P-6) against which LPA No. 862 of 2012, preferred by the State of Haryana stands dismissed, vide order dated 2.7.2012 (Annexure-P-7). Notice of the application.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior DAG Haryana, accepts notice. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up on Board for final disposal.

It is the contention of the counsel for respondents that the claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition is not covered by the aforesaid judgments for the reason that there was earlier an order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners in Kuldeep Singh''s case (supra), where their claim was directed to be considered in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P and T Department Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . He on this basis contends that the petitioners have earlier not approached this Court and has now filed the writ petition claiming the same benefit as has been granted to the petitioners in Kuldeep Singh''s case (supra).

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for respondents and have gone through the records of the case.

A specific averment has been made in para-3 of the writ petition by the petitioners that they were appointed as Conductors in the Haryana Roadways through proper channel/employment exchange in the years, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. The policy instructions dated 19.2.1979 (Annexure-P-1) covers not only the Ticket Verifiers but the conductors, drivers and workshop staff also. The claim of the petitioners thus cannot be distinguished from those who have been granted the benefit under the same policy, vide judgment dated 19.12.2011 in Kuldeep Singh''s case (supra) (Annexure-P-6). The factum that the petitioners were appointed through the employment exchange, has not been disputed. The policy, therefore, covers the claim of the petitioners and the judgment would be on all fours applicable to the claim of the petitioners as made in the present writ petition. It would not be out of way to mention here that the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana against the judgment in Kuldeep Singh''s case stands already dismissed. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed in same terms as Kuldeep Singh''s case (supra). Petitioners are entitled to the same consequential benefit which be released to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.