Item No.
46
Jai Kishan versus State of Haryana & ors.
SLP (C) NO.24258 OF 2025
Vide Impugned Order dt.05.02.2025 the HC dismissed the Writ P filed by Petitioner. The court found
that appeals are misconceived and without merits
-- BRIEF --
08.06.1993 The petitioner was appointed as a conductor through employment exchange on contractual
basis by the General Manager Haryana Roadways, Gurugram.
28.07.1994 Govt. of Haryana issued instructions regarding regularization of services of drivers and
conductors. As per this those who completed 2 years of service on contractual basis should
be regularized against the vacancy. [Annexure P-1, pg.18-
19]
07.06.1995 Petitioner herein completed 2 years of service and therefore entitled for regularization.
17.11.1995 The office instructions dt. 28.07.1994 regarding regularization of drivers and conductors
were withdrawn and the staff should not be regularized. [Annexure P-2,
pg.20]
17.04.1997 8 drivers regularized who completed 2 years of regular service by the Haryana Govt.
irrespective of withdrawal of circular dt. 28.07.1994. [Annexure P-3, pg.21-23]
23.03.1998 Transport Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh issued and office instruction regularizing of
services of drivers and conductors working on contractual basis. [Annexure P-4, pg.24-27]
03.08.1998 Petitioner was regularized in the service as conductor. [Annexure P-5, pg.28-31]
18.12.2001 Some of the employees of the Roadways Department had approached the Hon'ble Court
with a prayer that their services should be regularized from the date they completed two
years of service.
The HC allowed writ petitions and directed the respondents to regularize the petitioners as
they worked more than 8 years of service. [Annexure P-6, pg.32-34]
18.105.200 The Respondents have regularized the officials /conductors who were working on
9 contractual basis under judgement of Punjab & Haryana HC. [Annexure P-7,
pg.35-37]
15.05.2012 The Petitioner issued a legal notice to the Transport Commissioner seeking regularization
in the service right from the date they have completed two years of service.
[Annexure P-8, pg.38-42]
23.07.2012 HC ordered Respondent to consider and decide the legal notice within a period of 4 months
from the date of receiving of the certified copy of the order.
12.02.2013 The Respondent issued the legal notice rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner by holding that
that there is no regular vacancy and hence the Petitioner is not entitled for regularization
alleging instruction dt. 20.07.1994 for regularization of the employees was withdrawn on
07.11.1995. [Annexure P-9, pg.43-46]
16.09.2013 The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21627 of 2013 before HC for quashing the order dt.
12.02.2013 and further prayed for issuance of mandamus directing the Respondents to
regularize the services of the Petitioner after completion of two years of service.
[Annexure P-10, pg.47-63]
22.07.2019 HC dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petition suffered for delay and laches
on account of the Petitioner maintained a stoic silence for a period of close to 14 years from
the date of accrual of cause of action.
The Judge further observed that the Petitioner has not mentioned die name of the juniors
who have been regularized and they were not made parties when the order dated
17.04.1997 very clearly shows that the juniors of the Petitioner have been regularized,
whereas the Petitioner has not been regularized.
[Annexure P-12, pg.72-83]
Item No.46
15.01.2024 Petitioner filed WP No. 2723 of 2024 aggrieved by the order dt. 22.07.2019 in HC.
[Annexure P-13, pg.84-91]
05.02.2025 IMPUNGED JUDGEMENT- DISMISSED THE WP
The HC dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by holding that the appeals are
misconceived and are without merits. (pg.7)
The HC further observed that the service record of the Petitioner and Respondent
No.5 were too dismal and insufficient for consideration for regularization, when the
Respondents themselves have not pleaded anything of that sort in the counter
affidavit. (pg.7) [Pg.1-12]
16.04.2025 Hence, the present petition – Grounds
HC completely failed to consider the fact that similarly placed employees have
been regularized by the Respondents and therefore the Petitioner is also entitled for
regularization on completion of two years of service as per the policy decision
dated 28.07.1994.
HC failed to notice the fact that the period of service of an employee is of
paramount importance for calculation of Death cum Retirement & Gratuity and
other pensionary benefits. [Pg. 9-17]
