Garib Dass vs State of Haryana and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, rejecting his claim to regularise his services on completion of ten years . The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed as Sweeper-cum-Chowkidar against a vacant post for 89 days by respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal. He continued on the post without any break as his appointment was extended from time to time. On 4.11.1999, the petitioner is said to have made a representation through proper channel to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, for regularisation of his services. It is claimed that his case was recommended by Naib Tehsildar-respondent No. 4 to the Sub Divisional Officer-respondent No. 3.

On 1.1.2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal-respondent No. 2 passed an order rejecting claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services on the ground that he had not rendered continuous service of ten years as was required by the policy instructions dated 17.10.2002. According to the impugned order, the petitioner had worked up to 28.2.2002 and he did not turn up after that date. Consequently, he was paid wages only up to 28.2.2002. Even otherwise no sanction for the post of Chowkidar was received from the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Ambala Division, for the post of Sweeper -cum- Chowkidar, which was held by the petitioner. It has been pointed out that the post existed only from year to year basis. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been claimed that the petitioner has worked till August, 2004 and respondents have incorrectly stated the facts that he has not worked after 28.2.2002. The petitioner has claimed by sending legal notice dated 4.2.2005(Annexure P-12)payment of salary up to the period of August, 2004. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner also deserved to be given relief of regularisation.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is liable to be relegated to the remedy of seeking a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as disputed questions of facts have been raised. There is a serious dispute as to whether the petitioner has worked up to 28.2.2002 or August, 2004. With regard to the relief of regularisation, no direction could be issued in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, . Therefore, the prayer in that regard has to be rejected.

For the reasons stated above, this petition fails so far as the relief of regularisation is concerned. However, with regard to the salary for the disputed period and for his termination, the petitioner may avail the alternative remedy on account of disputed questions of facts.

The petition stand disposed of in the above terms.