IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 1064 of 2004
DATE OF DECISION : JULY 30, 2009
SWARAN SINGH
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as
a Driver and grant him the scale of pay sanctioned for the said post on the
principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’, with effect from the date the
petitioner has been assigned the duty of a Driver i.e. 11.2.1991.
In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was
Civil Writ Petition No. 1064 of 2004 2
appointed as a Workshop Attendant, which is a Class-IV post, on regular
basis, on 22.1.1979, in the Department of Education. Initially, the
petitioner joined at Government Senior School, Ferozepur. The petitioner
passed higher secondary examination in the year 1975 and also possessed
a valid Driving Licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The petitioner
became fit to be appointed on the post of a Driver.
It is further pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has been
performing the duties of a Driver since 1991 under the District Education
Officer (SE), Ferozepur (respondent No.4) against a sanctioned vacant
post. There has been no complaint in regard to the work of the petitioner.
The petitioner was not given any special allowance to which the petitioner
would be entitled to, having served as a driver. The petitioner kept on
performing the duties as a Driver to the entire satisfaction of his employer.
Certificate dated 10.5.1995 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2,
wherein it has been certified by the District Education officer, Ferozepur,
that the petitioner is working on deputation as Driver since 11.2.1991.
The petitioner has been making entries in the Log Book.
In the petition, it has been prayed that the petitioner has not
been given his dues in violation of his civil rights as the petitioner is
performing the duties of a Class-III post i.e. a Driver. The case of the
petitioner was recommended for the said purpose, however, no action has
been taken for absorption of the petitioner as a Driver.
In this regard, reliance has been placed on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in CWP 7323 of 1999 (Hardarshan Singh v. State
of Punjab and others) decided on 6.8.2002 (Annexure P-11), wherein, in
Civil Writ Petition No. 1064 of 2004 3
similar circumstances, the relief was given to the petitioner. It has further
been brought out that the said judgment was challenged in appeal by the
State of Punjab in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, however, the same
was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the
fact that the petitioner has been serving as a driver since 11.2.1991.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further not been able to
distinguish the judgment in Hardarshan Singh’s case (supra).
I have considered the issue.
The following needs to be extracted from the judgment in
Hardarshan Singh’s case (supra):-
“It is true that two wrongs never make a right. An
illegal action in one case shall not justify the repetition of
another mistake. Resultantly, the Court will not compel
the authority to repeat the wrong. However, in the
present case, nothing has been pointed out with reference
to any rule which may place a bar on promotion of a class
IV employee to the class III service. Still further, there is
not even a suggestion that the petitioner does not fulfil
any qualification which may have been prescribed for the
post of Driver. In any event, the petitioner has worked as
a driver for the last about 10 years. Nothing has been
found against him. The State Government has repeatedly
issued instructions for the regularisation of services of the
employees who have worked on a post for a sufficiently
long time. In the present case, the petitioner is a regular
member of the class IV service. He has worked for almost
10 years on a class III post. Even under the instructions,
issued by the State Government, he is entitled to be
considered for regularisation.
Civil Writ Petition No. 1064 of 2004 4
Taking all these facts cumulatively, it appears to be
just and fair to direct that the respondent shall consider
the petitioner’s case for regularisation on the post of
Driver. The needful shall be done within 2 months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The
consequential reliefs shall follow.
The writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances,
the parties are left to bear their own costs.”
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
which are not distinguishable, as is evident from the extracted portion of
the judgment in Hardarshan Singh’s case (supra), I am of the opinion that
the petitioner is entitled to the same claim as was granted in the cited
judgment.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case
for regularisation on the post of Driver within 2 months of receipt of a
certified copy of the order. The petitioner would also be entitled to all
consequential reliefs.
July 30, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?