Though the order does number specify on which post was the said regular appointment was made, it must necessarily be understood as regularisation in the post which he was holding on that date viz.,
On January 8, 1991, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Board to companysider the appellants representation dated February 10, 1990 within six months from the date of the order.
Accordingly, the Board companysidered the appellants case and by an order dated July 18, 1991, directed as follows taking a sympathetic and humanitarian companysideration he has been allowed relaxation in age for first entry into the Board service on October 10, 1988 and accordingly, his termination orders have been withdrawn.
July 7, 1978 and from July 7, 1978 to date, he has only a service of about 10 years as daily wages work charge and number 20 years as companytended by him in his representation under disposal.
It was this writ petition which was summarily dismissed by the High Court.
Since numberaction was taken by the Board, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on August 1, 1990, challenging the order of termination dated November 15, 1974 and for certain other reliefs.
The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated August 2, 1991 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine.
His services were terminated on November 15, 1974 with effect from December 15, 1974.
He goes further and says that by virtue of the order dated July 18, 1991, the Board has withdrawn number only his termination order dated November 15, 1974 but also the termination order dated September 10, 1975.
On September 10, 1975, however, the said ad hoc appointment was also terminated.
The appellant was appointed temporarily as a T Mate by the respondent Haryana State Electricity Board on November 20, 1968.
T Mate.
Be that as it may, he was appointed on an ad hoc basis in the same post on December 12, 1974.
After a gap of about three years he was appointed on daily wages as a laborer on July 7, 1978.
On that date he was appointed as a shift attendant on a regular basis.
On September 11, 1987, he was transferred to A.E.E. Transformer Repair Workshop, Karnal, as a T Mate.
He companytinued as such till April 16, 1973.
This order he did number challenge.
Leave granted.
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court claiming that in view of the revocation of the termination orders, he is entitled to his seniority and other benefits with effect from November 15, 1974.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
This order the appellant did number challenge.
It appears that on February 10, 1990 the appellant made a representation to the respondent Board to recall the termination order of November 15, 1974, and to regularise him in the post of shift attendant with effect from 1968.
