Dismissed

Jaswant Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2010CWP/11393/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-selection for a lecturer post and sought regularization. Court held petitioner could only claim preference under Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act for re-employment consideration, which was not mandatory, and dismissed the writ petition as he was not retained.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction as to costs.

Jaswant Singh Vs Haryana State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.W.P. No.11393 of 1989

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.11393 of 1989 Date of Decision.19.04.2010

¶5

Jaswan Singh S/o Jai Singh

¶6

........Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula through its Secretary and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

There is no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is present and he is ready. Having regard to the fact that the case is of the year 1989, I hasten to dispose of the case with the assistance of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶19

The petitioner puts in challenge his non-selection for the post as a Lecturer but couches the relief as though the petitioner is entitled to regularization of the service. The case to the extent to which it is admitted by the respondents is that the petitioner had been a daily wager with respondent Nos.1 and 2 since 1981 and his services were terminated after due notice as per the requirements

¶20

C.W.P. No.11393 of 1989 -2-

¶21

of law on 01.09.1984. In the year 1989, a selection process was undertaken again for filling up vacancies on regular basis, when the petitioner had been issued with a call letter for an interview along with several others. In the interview that was held on 26.02.1989, the private respondents No.3 to 6 had been appointed while the petitioner was found by relative consideration of the merit as not suitable. Significantly, the petitioner has not challenged the criterion set down for the interview and his contention is that he was entitled to priority in consideration by application of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶22

If the basic fact that the petitioner was not retained in employment at the time of the writ petition is sound, then the question of regularization of service does not arise. If the relief must be only understood as an euphemism for a relief for consideration for fresh appointment (re-employment) in the manner contemplated under Section 25-H, again as the counsel for the respondents points out the language employed in the Section is that a person who had been retrenched shall have an opportunity for being considered. The relevant Section 25-H is reproduced here:

¶23

" 25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen – Where

¶24

any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen] who offer themselves for re-employment shall

¶25

C.W.P. No.11393 of 1989 -3-

¶26

have preference over other persons."

¶27

It is not denied that the petitioner had been provided with such an opportunity when an interview was held and the private respondents had been preferred over the claims of the petitioner. Language employed under Section 25-H prescribes for (i) an opportunity to the retrenched workman to offer himself for reemployment and (ii) he shall have preference over other persons. It is not mandatory for the employer at all times to provide employment if there are good enough reasons to deny to an exemployee with employment. The petitioner has no legal ground to seek for the relief made in the writ petition and it is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs.

¶28

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶29

April 19, 2010 Pankaj*

Jaswant Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwinder Kaur Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Manvinder Pal Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Jot Singh & Ors. Vs Hseb & Ors.

Amrik Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab Mandi Board and Ors.

Rameshwar Dass and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.