ORDER
R.S. Mongia, J.
1. The writ-petitioner was appointed as Silt Observer in the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation (hereinafter called the ‘Corporation’) on work charged basis on November 4, 1978. A notice was issued to the petitioner on May 4, 1988 for retrenching him after one month on the ground that certain categories of work-charged employees had become surplus. It is the case of the petitioner that he did not receive this notice but having come to know about the retrenchment he filed a civil suit on June 9, 1988 challenging the action of the Corporation in retrenching his services. The civil court granted an injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the Corporation, restraining it from terminating the services of the petitioner. The suit was however, dismissed on August 2,1993 on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter. However, the civil court also decided the case on merits against the petitioner holding that petitioner could be retrenched. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on August 22, 1993, challenging the retrenchment notice. The motion Bench stayed the termination of the services of the petitioner.
2. The primary argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the retrenchment notice was issued to the petitioner, he had completed almost ten years of service on work-charged basis and by the time he filed the writ petition, he had completed almost 15 years of service. According to Government instructions issued from time to time, the petitioner having completed more than five years of service on work-charged basis, was entitled to be regularised in service. Accordingly, the retrenchment notice was liable to be quashed. He referred to Government instructions dated November 25, 1978 regarding regularisation of services of the work-charged employees who had completed five years service or more. According to these instructions, all the work-charged employees who had completed five years or more service on work-charged basis, were to be made regular from 1st April every year and if necessary posts could be got created from the Finance Department. Reference was also made to the later instructions dated May 7, 1993 (Annexure P-6) which were issued by the State Government after the judgment of the apex Court in Piara Singh’s case which were to the effect that all the workers of non-project work-charged establishment who have completed five years service as on 31st August 1992 are to be made regular if they were recruited before September 3, 1980. The services of such work-charged employees are to be regularised without any further screening about the justification of continuance of these posts. Learned counsel also relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8760 of 1988 Salochan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors, decided on September 23,1992 (copy Annexure P-5).
3. On the other hand, the case of the Corporation as put forth by its learned counsel is that the petitioner had been employed on a project which was financed by the World Bank for the brick lining of water courses and after the work had finished certain staff had become surplus and consequently the Corporation was unable to keep the entire staff employed for the purpose and necessarily the services of some staff had to be retrenched. Further according to the learned counsel the instructions of the Government dated November 25, 1978 are not applicable to the Corporation and the later instructions, to which reference has been made above, the petitioner’s case is not covered under those instructions inasmuch as the petitioner stood retrenched in the year 1988. The instructions would not cover the cases of those persons who may be continuing by virtue of stay order granted by the Courts. He further submitted that against the judgment in CWP 8760 of 1988 (Salochan Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and Ors.) the Corporation filed Letters Patent Appeal 538 of 1993 which was disposed of on October 8, 1993. The learned single Judge in the above said writ petition had allowed the writ petition of some of the petitioners who had worked for more than five years prior to the filing of the writ petition and were continuing till the decision of the writ petition when it was brought to the notice of the letters Patent Bench that a few petitioners whose writ petition had been allowed, had not been re-employed by the Corporation after their initial retrenchment and were not entitled to be regularised as per judgment of the learned single Judge, the writ petition qua such petitioner who were not in service on the date when the writ petition was decided was dismissed by the Letters Patent Bench.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. No doubt, the petitioner had completed almost ten years of service prior to the notice of retrenchment, but he was working on work-charged basis and having become surplus, the Corporation was entitled to retrench the surplus staff after complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The instructions dated November 25, 1978, ipso facto would not be applicable to the Corporation unless the Corporation adopts them or the Government specifically directs the Corporation that these would be applicable to the employees of the Corporation. In the later instructions dated May 7, 1993, it has specifically been directed by the Government that those instructions would be applicable to the employees of the Government Corporations which include the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation. Consequently, the petitioner cannot take any benefit of the earlier instructions for the purpose of considering his case for regularisation. As far as the later instructions are concerned, I am of the view that those are applicable to those employees who were actually in service by virtue of the permission or volition of the employer on August 31, 1992 and had been employed prior to September 3, 1980. In the present case, petitioner stood retrenched in the year 1988 though he has continued in service first by the stay order passed by the Civil Court and then by this Court in the writ petition. He was not continuing in the Corporation by any permission granted by the Corporation or order issued to that effect by it. He cannot be allowed to take any benefit of the stay order granted by the Courts for the purpose of his case being considered for regularisation in view of the later instructions.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.
6. Before parting with the judgment, I may observe that petitioner has continuously worked on work charged basis right from 1978 to 1988 when he was retrenched and thereafter till date by virtue of the stay granted by Civil Court and then by this Court. It would be in the fitness of the things if the petitioner’s case is considered by the Corporation sympathetically for appointment against the post of Silt Observer or any other post for which he may have the requisite qualifications on preferential basis in accordance with law. I make no order as to costs.