Judgment:
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23428 of 2005)
G.P. Mathur, J. - Leave granted
2. This appeal, by special leave,
has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated July 18, 2005 of
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ petition filed by
the respondent Saroj Bala was allowed and it was directed that her
services shall be regularized w.e.f. October 1, 2003 with all
consequential benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the issue of
regularization of service has been recently examined by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi
& Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the judgment rendered by the High Court is not
in accordance with law laid down in the aforesaid case. Learned counsel
has further submitted that the award of the Labour Court dated June 2,
2003 passed in favour of the respondent was challenged by the appellants
by filing C.W.P. No.13335 of 2005 and the High Court has stayed
operation of the award by the order dated August 25, 2005.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Government
of Haryana has issued a policy dated October 1, 2003 for regularization
of employees, whereunder the respondent is entitled to be regularized.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not disputed the said fact, but
has submitted that regularization of service can be done only in
accordance with the conditions which are enumerated in the said policy
but the respondent does not satisfy the conditions enumerated in the
said policy.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh
consideration by the High Court in the light of the decision referred to
above and also the policy issued by the Government of Haryana.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and order under
challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court
for a fresh decision of the writ petition. It is made clear that this
Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by
the respondent.
Print This Judgment
|