Sukhandeep Singh And Others vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioners as regular and pass an order regularizing their services w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment after adding a period of 18 months, as per relevant rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were selected through advertisement published by the respondent-Corporation and they were appointed as Conductors/Drivers in April, 2006 through a labor contractor i.e. Ex-serviceman Security Services to circumvent their right for regular employment. The petitioners continued to serve the respondent-Corporation for over 19 years and being on direct contract basis since the year 2007, their services have not been regularized till date. Further, in terms of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations, 1981, an employee retained beyond 06 months is to be treated as probationer and after successful completion of probation period, he/she shall be deemed to be confirmed, if his/her services are found satisfactory. It is further contended that services of the petitioners remained satisfactory throughout and there is no adverse remarks against any of them. The petitioners are performing the duties, which are perennial in nature and are indispensable for the respondent-Corporation They were neither engaged a casual labour nor part time workers. The petitioners served a legal notice dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) upon the respondent, which remains unheeded. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgments rendered by this Court in CWP-8240-2008 titled as Dalbir Singh and others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 22.03.2010 and CWP- 12211-2021 titled as Hans Raj and others Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 03.09.2025.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his prayer to the extent that the petitioners would be satisfied, if the legal notice dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) is decided by the respondent, in terms of the judgments rendered by this Court in Dalbir Singh’s case (supra) and Hans Raj’s case (supra), by passing a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing, in a time bound manner.

Notice of motion.

At this stage, Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and files Memorandum of Appearance in the Court today, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place of the case file. He has no objection, in case a direction is issued to the respondent to consider and decide the legal notice dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court, in a time bound manner, by passing a speaking order.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, present petition is disposed of and the respondent-Corporation is directed to consider and decide the legal notice dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) in the light of judgments rendered by this Court in Dalbir Singh’s case (supra) and Hans Raj’s case (supra) and pass a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Further, the decision taken on the legal notice dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) shall be conveyed to the petitioners.

Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted to them forthwith by the competent authority.