Ram Niwas and another vs State of Haryana and others

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the

validity of the order dated 24.9.2013 (Annexure P-6) and further sought for

a direction to the respondents to regularize their services w.e.f. 1.9.1990

instead of 1.2.1996. The respondents with reference to the decisions of this

Court, regularized the service of Ticket Verifiers with reference to the fact

that they have completed 240 days. Among others, petitioners'' services

were also regularized w.e.f. 1.2.1996 ignoring the fact that the petitioners

have completed 240 days as on 1.9.1990. Such regularization order was

passed on 8.10.2002. The petitioners have failed to question the date of

regularization i.e. "1.2.1996" so as to change the date of regularization from

1.2.1996 to that of 1.9.1990 timely. For the first time, they have approached

this Court in the year 2012. This Court disposed of the petition directing

the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners and to pass a

speaking order. Thus, the respondents have passed the speaking order

which is under challenge.

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that

there is a discrimination among the employees while regularizing the

services, the persons who were regularized their services, the respondents

have taken into consideration of 240 days. The said principle has not been

adhered in the case of the petitioners. Thus, there is a discrimination and

arbitrary decision is taken by the respondents while regularizing the service

of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be

set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the petitioners'' services were regularized on 8.10.2002 w.e.f.

1.2.1996 for their grievance for alteration of the date of regularization from

1.2.1996 to that of 1.9.1990, they had the cause of action in the year 2002.

They did not agitate their grievance in 2002. In this regard, learned counsel

for the respondents relies on a decision of this Court passed in LPA

No.1662 of 2015 (Sukhbir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and

others) disposed of on 31.8.2016 wherein this Court has rejected on the

ground of inordinate delay and laches to claim regularization. The said

decision is aptly applicable to the present case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perusal of the prayer and dates and events in particularly date

of regularization of the petitioners i.e. 8.10.2002 and the date of

regularization has been assigned as 1.2.1996. For the purpose of alteration

of the date of regularization from 1.2.1996 to that of 1.9.1990. The

petitioners had cause of action in the year 2002. For the first time they have

approached in the year 2012. Thus, there is an inordinate delay and laches

for period from 2002 to 2012 on the part of the petitioners. That apart

Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1662 of 2015 (Sukhbir Singh and

others Vs. State of Haryana and others) held that inordinate delay and

laches in respect of claiming regularization is impermissible. Having regard

to the above facts, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere

with the impugned order.

Petition stands dismissed.