JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. This petition, in substance, seeks a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of policy dated 26.5.2003, Annexure P-6.
2. Case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Peon in Government Industrial School for Girls, Pathankot vide appointment-letter dated 10.6.1996. Vide letter dated 12.6.1996, the petitioner was required to undergo medical examination. After medical examination on 13.6.1996, the petitioner joined service on 14.6.1996 and continued to work till 11.8.2003 when her services were terminated vide order Annexure P-9 on the ground that her case was not covered by the policy of regularisation as she had joined service on 14.6.1996 while the policy was applicable to the persons appointed on or before 13.6.1996. Hence this petition.
3. In the reply filed, the impugned order is supported on the ground that the petitioner had joined service after 13.6.1996 and her case was not, thus, covered by the policy.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the policy was applicable to those appointed on or before 13.6.1996 and the petitioner was also so appointed though she joined on 14.6.1996 and she is also to be taken to have been so appointed having regard to the object of the policy. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 17737 of 2003 Wazir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 15.12.2003, wherein break in service was ignored having regard to the object of the policy. It was submitted that having regard to the spirit of the policy, case of the petitioner could not be excluded from consideration on the only consideration that she joined on 14.6.1996 and not on or before 13.6.1996.
6. Learned counsel for the State is unable to show any reason as to why the petitioner should not be taken to have been appointed prior to 13.6.1996 for the purposes of the policy in view of the fact that the letter of appointment of the petitioner is dated 11.6.1996.
7. We find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The object of the policy is to consider case of those employees who had rendered about 7 years of service. The petitioner was appointed on or before 13.6.1996 though she joined on 14.6.1996 after medical examination etc. Though for all purposes, her appointment may be taken to be from the date of joining, for the purpose of policy the petitioner has to be treated as having been appointed on or before 13.6.1996.
8. Accordingly we allow this petition and direct that case of the petitioner be considered taking the date of appointment of the petitioner to be 13.6.1996 even though the petitioner joined service on 14.6.1996 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till a decision is taken, interim order dated 26.8.2003 directing that the service of the petitioner be not dispensed with will remain operative.