High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 April, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 April, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                            CHANDIGARH.

                        C.W.P. No. 9681 of 1987

                    Date of Decision: April 1, 2009

Avtar Singh

                                                             ...Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Punjab and another

                                                         ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

Present:      None for the petitioner.

              Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
              for the respondents.

1.    Whether Reporters of local papers 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?


M.M. KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court for

regularisation of his services. He was working as a Conductor with

the Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh Depot, Chandigarh, having been

appointed in April 1982. The services of the petitioner were

terminated on 31.7.1985. The order of termination was challenged in

the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 27.10.1986,

published on 3.12.1986, had reinstated the petitioner with continuity

of service with 60% of back wages (P-1). Accordingly he was

reinstated and is still working on his post. He has claimed that his

services be regularised as per the policy of the State, which
CWP No. 9681 of 1987 2

contemplated regularisation of the services of such employees who

have completed one year of service as on 1.4.1985. The petitioner

has claimed that he had completed three years of service.

When the petition came up for consideration on

18.12.1987, the termination of services of the petitioner was stayed

till further orders. The aforesaid order was made absolute till the

decision of the instant petition.

Learned State counsel has stated that since the stay order

granted by this Court in the year 1987 has continued all these years

and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated then

the order of regularisation was bound to be passed. According to the

learned counsel this would render the petition infructuous.

In view of the above, the writ petition is rendered

infructuous and disposed of as such. However, liberty is granted to

the petitioner to move appropriate application if such a necessity

arises.





                                                   (M.M. KUMAR)
April 1, 2009                                          JUDGE

Pkapoor