IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18483 of 2012 Date of Decision:
05. 08.2013 Pandu ....Petitioner Versus U.T.Administration and others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.A.S.Nabhewala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
*** 1.
Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
*** AJAY TEWARI, J.
The prayer made in this writ petition is for regularization.
The petitioner joined the Chandigarh Administration as a daily wager on 01.01.1982.
After the lapse of 14 yeaRs.the services of the petitioner along with many other employees was transferred to the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, where the petitioner joined on 21.05.1996.
In the year 2010, when the case of the petitioner and other similar employees was being considered for regularization, it was discovered that his name did not appear in the list of workmen of workers transferred to the Municipal Corporation.
Pooja Saini 2013.08.08 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CWP No.18483 of 2012 At that stage, one post was kept reserved for him to await a clarification from the Chandigarh Administration.
Nothing having been done, the petitioner has approached this Court.
In reply the Municipal Corporation states that as far as they are concerned they would have no objection to regularization of services of the petitioner provided his name appears in the list of employees transferred to it.
Learned counsel for the UT Administration however, states that actually the petitioner's services were not to be transferred to the Municipal Corporation and had to be retained by the Chandigarh Administration but inadvertently he was relieved from the Chandigarh Administration and joined in the Municipal Corporation as per letter Annexure P-3.
The Chandigarh Administration has stated that it would not recall the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that if the petitioner is not recalled to the Chandigarh Administration, his chances of regularization with effect from the date persons junior to him were regularized would be jeopardized because there is no post available in the Chandigarh Administration at present against which the petitioner could be regularized.
As per learned counsel, even if the letter directing the petitioner to join the Municipal Corporation was issued inadvertently, yet, not after 17 yeaRs.the clock cannot be turned back and the right which has been created in the petitioner after having served in the Municipal Corporation for 17 years cannot be taken away from him.
I find the arguments well merited.
Resultantly, the Chandigarh Administration is directed to not issue formal orders for transferring the petitioner to the Municipal Corporation, so that the claim of the petitioner for regularization can be considered.
Pooja Saini 2013.08.08 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CWP No.18483 of 2012 Let the Chandigarh Administration pass necessary order within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Petition disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) 05.08.2013 JUDGE pj Pooja Saini 2013.08.08 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document