IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17451 of 2008
Date of Decision: July 28, 2009
Dr. Amarjit Kaur & Others
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Another
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for
the petitioners.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, for the
respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition has been
filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to
regularise services of the petitioners with
effect from the date they have completed four
years of service.
It has been argued that the petitioners were appointed on the posts of
Medical Officer on short term basis in the State
CWP No.17451 of 2008 [2]
of Punjab after selection. So as to consider the
issue of regularisation of services of doctors, a
Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship
of Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) to consider
whether the doctors working on adhoc basis should
be allowed to continue or whether their services
should be regularised. Sandhawalia Committee
recommended that services of doctors on adhoc
basis be regularised with effect from the date
they complete four years of service. The
recommendations of Sandhawalia Committee were
accepted by the State of Punjab.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
has argued that having taken a conscious decision
to accept the recommendations of Sandhawalia
Committee, the respondents cannot pick and choose
from amongst doctors. It has been further stated
that cases of persons similarly situated, have
been allowed by this Court, while referring to
judgment dated 26.10.1999 rendered in Civil Writ
Petition No.11014 of 1998 titled `Dr. Manmohan Singh vs. State of
Punjab & Others’.
Learned counsel for the respondents
has not been able to dispute the facts as stated
by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel, further, has not been able to
distinguish the judgment dated 26.10.1999
CWP No.17451 of 2008 [3]
rendered in Civil Writ Petition No.11014 of 1998 titled `Dr.
Manmohan Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others’.
I have considered the issue.
In Dr. Manmohan Singh’s case (supra), the
following has been considered:-
“On a consideration of the matter, it is noticed that
in their reply, respondents No.1 and 2 have virtually
admitted that the petitioner’s plea for regularisation after
four years in service. They have only stated that the matter
is under consideration. It is also noticed that the State
Government, in pursuance of this Court’s order dated
April 5, 1995 in the cases of Dr. Lokesh Gupta and Dr.
Sunil Kumar, passed an order so as to regularise the
services of those two doctors from the date on which they
completed four years in service. It has further been seen
that the State Government regularised the services of 34
doctors with effect from June 26, 1992 vide order dated
January 31, 1995. Thus, the benefit of regularisation from
an earlier date has been given to many doctors. Why has it
been denied to the petitioner. The respondents have not
been able to give any good reason. It is further undisputed
that respondent No.4 though a regular candidate, had
joined service on January 13, 1993. The petitioner though
appointed on an adhoc basis, joined the service in
February, 1988. He is thus senior to respondent No.4. The
question of regularisation in favour of the petitioner has
been kept pending by the State Government without any
justification. The State Government cannot be allowed to
adopt two different yardsticks on the same question. When
other doctors, who are similarly situated, have been given
the benefit of regularisation of their services from a
retrospective date, the same could not and should not be
declined to the petitioner.”
On a consideration of the facts, it
becomes evident that the respondents have adopted
the recommendations of Sandhawalia Report and
have taken a decision to regularise services of
doctors on their completing 4 years in service.
The decision however is being applied
discriminately. Some doctors have been given the
benefit and some have been denied the benefit.
CWP No.17451 of 2008 [4]
The persons who approached this Court, have been
allowed the relief. Despite such being the facts,
although the petitioners completed 4 years in
service as doctors, their services have not been
regularised from that date. This action of the
respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary.
In view of the above, this petition
is allowed.
The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioners and pass
orders regarding regularisation of services of
the petitioners with effect from the date on
which they completed four years in service.
Necessary decision be taken within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
(AJAI LAMBA)
July 28, 2009 JUDGE
avin
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?