Gurmail Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Swantater Kumar, J.—In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the order Annexure P.4 be quashed and the service of the petitioner be regularised with effect from 1st December, 1994. The petitioner was appointed as driver on daily wages with respondent No. 5 in July, 1993. According to the petitioner he has worked for more that 240 days in every year and under the policy of the Government the petitioner was entitled to be regularised with effect from 30th November, 1994 as he had already put in 10 years of service on that date. The Government Policy has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P.1.

The petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing a writ petition bearing No. Civil Writ Petition No. 15357 of 1997 which was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10th October, 1997, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularlsation in accordance with its policy. The respondents were directed to take a decision within two months from the receipt of the copy of the order and till then respondents were restrained from dispensing with the services of the petitioner. On 25th October, 1998 i.e. nearly after a lapse of one year, the respondents passed an order Annexure P.4 which reads as under:-

"Subject: Regarding regularisation of daily wagers - In respect of meeting dated 8th October, 1998 of the Screening Review Committee.

In view of the decision dated 10th October, 1997 passed by the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Civil Writ Petition No. 15357 of 1997 filed by you, your case was considered by the Screening Review Committee in its meeting dated 8th October, 1998 for regularisation. But after receiving the copy of report submitted by the Committee to this office, it is found that you are not eligible for regularisation.

A copy of the report dated 8th October, 1998 submitted by the Screening Review Committee is being sent to you for information."

Upon notice, the respondents filed the reply and contended that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in each year of the prescribed 10 years and as such he was not entitled to regularisation. It was also contended on behalf of the State that new policy has come into force in the current year and as such the case of the petitioner can only be considered in terms of the new policy. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government Policy Annexure P.1 does not refer to "an employee working for 240 days of every year for the prescribed 10 years for service as on 30th November, 1994", as such the stand of the respondents is without any merit. It is also contended that that order in fact is a non-speaking one and the report of the Committee dated 8th October, 1998 had not been supplied to the petitioner. The respondents in paragraph No. 5 of the written statement have stated as under:-

"Para No. 5 denied. The petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions to be regularised in view of P.1. As explained in para No. 4, the petitioner has not completed 240 days in years 1983-84,1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87."

No particular documents have been placed on record by either party which could reasonably show whether the petitioner has or has not worked for 240 days in the above years. It is difficult for this Court to determine such a disputed fact in a writ petition. The affidavit filed by the respondents is stated to be based on record maintained by the department in normal course of business. Therefore, the Court cannot disbelieve such a statement at the very outset.

The contention of the petitioner that 240 days is not specifically spelled out in the policy is devoid of anj merit. Even in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Dharam Pal and Ors. 1996 (2) S.C.T. 719 SC the Hon''ble Supreme Court had also specifically directed the regularisation of only those employees (work-charged and daily wagers), who had worked for 240 days and in accordance with rules. Even Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act fully supports such a contention that the policy itself sufficiently indicates that such prescription is valid and proper.

For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this petition for quashing the order Annexure P.4. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as afore-referred, we direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of its policy Annexure P.1. Petitioner has admittedly served till date and has served for 240 days in every subsequent year. Thus, even in the year 2000 or even in the year 1999, the factor which persuaded us to give such direction is that no details were furnished to the petitioner before passing Annexure P.4. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the above direction. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order and the services of the petitioner shall not be dispensed with till that date.