Subhash vs State of Haryana and Others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court claiming regularization of his services based on the instructions, according to which, he is entitled to the claim made in the present writ petition. Petitioner contends that he was appointed in the respondent-Department in the year 1994 and since then, he has been working with the respondents. Despite there being various policies for regularization of the service of the daily wage employees i.e. 27.05.1993, 07.03.1996, which was amended on 18.03.1996, and thereafter on 01.10.2003 and again in July, 2011 and despite petitioner fulfilling all the requirements under those instructions, his services have not been regularized. Petitioner has been representing the respondents for regularization of his services but without any result. Faced with the situation, petitioner has submitted a final representation dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure P-6) to the respondents but no decision thereon has been taken till date.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, at this stage, would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar-respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure P-6) within some specified time. Without going into the merits of the case or commenting thereon, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the Divisional Forest Officer, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar-respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation dated 02.06.2012 (Annexure P-6) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. In case, the petitioner is held entitled to the claim made by him through his representation, the consequential benefits, if any, be released to him, in accordance with law, within a further period of two months.