Judgment:
Manoj Kumar CWP No.11760 of 2014 (O&M #1#2014.07.03 09:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11760 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.6.2014 Om Singh .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and Ors....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner is working as a Salesman on regular basis with the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation/respondent No.2 w.e.f 1.10.2003 pursuant to the order dated 19.5.2004 (P.4).He is claiming regularization w.e.f 26.10.1994 pursuant to the order (P.3).when he was appointed on ad hoc basis as Salesman in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for regularization of his ad hoc service pursuant to the Notification dated 1.10.2003, and therefore, is entitled to be regularized w.e.f the initial date of his ad hoc appointment w.e.f 26.10.1994.
He further states that some of the employees have been retrospectively regularized on the posts held by them with effect from their initial date of appointment on ad hoc basis (P.5) and thus, he is also entitled to similar treatment.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds no merit in the present writ petition.
It is not in dispute that the Notification dated 1.10.2003 was issued by the Haryana Government whereby in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, regularization policy for ad hoc/contract/daily wage employees was framed subject to fulfilment of CWP No.11760 of 2014 (O&M #2# certain conditions.
Said Notification has not been annexed with the writ petition, however, it is not disputed that on fulfilment of conditions, the regularization and the benefit of seniority to such employees was to be determined w.e.f 1.10.2003.
It is also not in dispute that since the petitioner fulfilled the terms and conditions for regularization in terms of the said policy, his services were regularized w.e.f 1.10.2003 vide order dated 19.5.2004 (P.4) along with other similarly situated employees.
It is well settled that while issuing a regularization policy, the date of the benefits like seniority and date of regularization are ordained in the Notification itself being within the competence of the State Government under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and provision of such a date has not been held as arbitrary, thus, the petitioner under no circumstances can claim his date of regularization with effect from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f 1994 contrary to the terms of that policy.
As regards the other set of employees, whose services have been regularized w.e.f 1988, no particulars have been furnished in the writ petition making out a case of discrimination.
Still further, it is conceded that the said employees had continuously worked on ad hoc basis since 1988 and perhaps their cases were re-considered with retrospective effect on the basis of their claim under the earlier regularization policies.
Petitioner's case is entirely different and not covered under any of the Notifications/regularization policies prior to the policy dated 1.10.2003, hence no ground is made out to entertain the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
June 30, 2014 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE