Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Th e instant writ petition has been f iled seeking setting aside of the order date d 15.03.2024, whereby the c laim of the petitioner for regularization o f his services has been declined. 2. Le a rned Counsel appearing on beh a lf of the petitioner contends

¶18

VISHAL SHARMAthat the petitioner was appointed on a daily wa g e basis in the year 1990 and 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M) -2-

¶20

has been contin u ously discharging his function s to the complete satisfaction of the responde n t authorities. She contends tha t the Government of Haryana had formulated a policy for regularization of the services of casual/daily wagers who ha d completed more than five ye a rs of continuous service and were in service as on 31.03.1993, and should h ave completed 240 days of work in each y e ar. Notwithstanding the said p o licy, the respondents did not initiate the proc e ss for regularization of the pet i tioner’s services. She further contends that a n other policy was thereafter notified by the respondents on 07.03.1996 fo r regularization of the serv i ces of casual/daily wage employees, wh o had completed more than fiv e years of continuous service and had worke d for 240 days and were in servi c e as on 31.01.1996. The said policy was furt h er modified on 18.03.1996 wh e reby period of 05 years was reduced to 03 years. The petitioner’s reque s t for regularization of his services was no t considered even though the sa i d benefit had been extended to other similar l y situated employees. Subseq u ently, another regularization policy was not i fied by the Government of H a ryana in the year 2014 for regularization of services of casual/daily wage employees, but the petitioner’s cas e was again ignored. 3. Sh e contends that the peti t ioner submitted various representations, but no decision was taken b y the respondent-authorities. Consequently, C WP-16404 of 2020 was filed before this Court. The said writ petition w as dismissed vide order date d 25.01.2024, directing the respondents to t ake a decision on the represen t ation and to pass a speaking VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M) -3-

¶22

order thereupo n . It is further contended that a nother writ petition, CWP33251 of 2024, was also filed but was withdr a wn as the order had already been passed i n the earlier writ petition on 25.01.2024. Eventually, the respondents p a ssed an order dated 15.03.2 0 24, thereby declining the petitioner’s claim, which is the subject matte r of challenge in the present writ petition.

¶23

It i s submitted that the respondent s have recorded a finding that there was nothi n g on record to establish that th e petitioner had worked with them during th e relevant period for more than 240 days and, therefore, he was not eligible for regularization. She contend s that the aforesaid finding of fact is misconc e ived and places reliance upon t he table showing the entries of service/pay m ent in the passbook, appen d ed as Annexure P-14, to substantiate th a t payments were indeed being credited to the petitioner’s account.

¶24

I h ave heard learned Counsel a ppearing on behalf of the petitioner at l e ngth and have gone throug h the documents appended alongwith the p r esent writ petition. 6. It w ould be apposite to make a r e ference to Office Order No. 216 dated 15.0 3 .2024 (impugned herein) to ex a mine the grounds on which the petitioner’s representation seeking regula r ization of service has been declined. The o p erative part thereof reads thus:-

¶25

“7. It may be n o ticed that all the documents which the petitioner(s ) will attach along with the

¶26

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

-4-

¶28

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M)

¶29

representation be take n into account while passing the speaking order. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of c o nnected cases." The petitioner, throu g h his lawyer, submitted a representation on 05. 0 2.2024, which was received in this office on 19.02. 2 024, following the orders of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Earlier, this office had sought information regarding the petitio n er's work from the Forest Range Officer, Chha c hhrauli. According to the Range Officer's rep o rt (Letter No. 886, dated 28.09.2016), the petit i oner had not worked in the Chhachhrauli Range. After reviewing the Range Officer's report, th e facts mentioned in the petitioner's represent a tion dated 19.02.2024, and the regularization pol i cies issued by the Haryana Government in 1993, 1 996, 2003, and 2014, it was found that the petition e r does not qualify under any of these policies.

¶30

Additionally, it is also clarified that the petitioner had earlier f iled CWP No. 12970/2016 in the Hon'ble High Cou r t, which was disposed of on 16.08.2016. Followin g this, this office had already issued speaking order s as per the court's directives. Decision:

¶31

Hence, the claim for r egularization made by Shri Tara Chand Ram, son of Shri Molhu, is rejected.

¶32

Th e specific finding of fact record e d by the respondent officials is that there is n o available record to establish t h at the petitioner had worked VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M) -5-

¶34

in the Chhach h rauli Range during the perio d as claimed and for which regularization i s being claimed. In response t o this finding, the petitioner has placed reli a nce on the table reflecting ent r ies of service and payments from the passbook, which has been appended, to demonstrate that remuneration w a s indeed credited to the petitio n er’s account for the relevant period. The sa m e is extracted as under:-

¶35

D *ate*	*Particulars*	*Amount* *Credited*
2 0.01.2024	Salary	34915.00
3 1.01.2024	Salary	19104.00
1 9.11.2016	NEFT-DV-Conserv ation	7976.00
2 1.02.2017	NEFT-DV-Conserv ation	7768.00
1 8.04.2017	NEFT-CHAMANL AL	8070.00
0 6.07.2017	NEFT-DV-Conserv ation	5400.00
2 9.08.2017	NEFT-DV-Conserv ation	4345.00
1 7.04.2018	UNION/NEFT-VF C	12938.00
2 0.04.2018	CANARA/NEFT-PA RAM	12927.00
2 7.04.2021	By NACB/1870403 NACH0000000002 074/ 2444/BSWC	32,413.59
1 0.08.2021	By NEFT BAWAS (006200) INGH AND SON	15,000.00

¶36

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M) -6-

¶38

1 9.08.2021	By MUKESH (6394 00)	2,598.00
1 5.11.2021	By NACH/6704691 NACH0000000002 809/ 2444/BSWC	1,11,720.00
2 9.12.2021	By MUKESH KUM AR (639400)	11,630.00
0 6.04.2023	NEFT GANAULIV COMMITTEE GIH ILLAGE FOREST	8,811.00
0 6.08.2024	NEFT SALINDER KUMAR	10,998.00
2 1.01.2023	NEFT SALINDER BANK OF BAROD KUMAR- A	15,000.00
2 8.09.2018	UNION/NEFT-VF C	12,927.00
0 4.12.2018	UNION/NEFT-VF C	9,553.00
1 0.01.2019	NEFT-V F C GAN OUL	2,259.00
1 5.01.2020	CORPN/NEFT –BA WA S	10,000.00
0 2.03.2020	SBI/NEFT-EMPLO YEE	7,548.00
0 3.03.2020	SBI/NEFT-EMPLO YEE	20,494.00
2 1.03.2020	AXIS BANK/NEFT -NOO	17,754.00
2 1.07.2020	PNB/NEFT-MUKE SH K	7,876.00

¶39

Th e entries in the passbook reflect seemingly random

¶40

transactions in d icating some payments made fr om 2016 onwards, and that too irregularly a t different intervals. These entr i es also do not in any manner

¶41

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M) -7-

¶43

establish that s u ch payments were made by t h e respondent Department or Chhachhrauli Range directly to the petitioner. S ince the petitioner claims to have been enga g ed with the respondent Depart m ent since 1989 and to have continuously w o rked, thereby claiming eligibility for regularization under the policies of 1 993, 1996, as well as 2014, it was incumbent upon him to establish that h e was in service with the respo n dent for the requisite period and at the relev a nt time when these respective p olicies were notified by the State. The tabl e showing salary entries fails t o establish any relationship between the pet i tioner and the respondent Depa r tment for any period prior to November 201 6 . Furthermore, there has be e n no regularization policy applicable sinc e that time, and the 2014 polic y notified by the respondent State of Haryan a has already been set aside by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 17206 of 2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi & Another v. State of Haryana & Others.

¶44

Co n sidering it from either perspec t ive, the instant writ petition raises disputed q uestions of fact that cannot be gone into by a writ Court at this juncture.

¶45

T h e instant writ petition is thus di s missed in limine. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate alternative rem e dy to establish its relationship a n d make any such claim. 11. Th e observations recorded herei n above are solely for the purposes of ex a mining the instant writ petitio n and the findings recorded above should n o t be construed as an expressio n on merits of the case, in the VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CWP-5546-2025 (O&M) -8-

¶47

event of the pet i tioner preferring recourse to an y other alternative remedy. In the event of pu r suing alternative remedy, the s ame shall be decided on the basis of the evi d ence led before the competent a u thority.

¶48

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) MAY 22, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶49

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.06.04 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Tara Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Singh and Others Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board and Others

Jaswinder Singh Vs Bank of India and Ors.

D.v.Rana Vs State of Haryana etc.

Dusyant Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sher Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Bandhan Bank Ltd. and Others