Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Markfed & Anr on 19 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227
-1-
CWP-16877
16877 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-16877
16877 of 1998
Date of decision: 19.11.2024
Harbhajan Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab State Co-operative
Co operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.
(Markfed) and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Malkeet Singh Balianwali, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate,
for the respondents.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking directions to the respondents to regularise his services w.e.f.
18.01.1994, the date when the person junior to the petitioner, namely, Shiv Narain was regularised by modifying the order dated 17.12.1996 (Annexure P-5), P 5), with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis on 01.09.1986 and thereafter his services were terminated on 01.03.1988. He served a demand notice dated 02.10.1989 and the industrial dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda. On 23.10.1990, the authorised representatives of the workman made a statement before the Labour Court that date of termination of service of the workman has wrongly bbeen mentioned in 1 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -2- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 the demand notice, as such, the reference is incompetent and consequently, the said reference was disposed of vide award dated 23.10.1990. The petitioner again served a demand notice dated 24.10.1993 and the dispute was referred to the Pr Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, vide reference No.85 of 1993 and vide award dated 25.04.1995, petitioner/workman was held entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service without backwages as the workman had kept silent till 24.10.1993, 24.10.1 , when a demand notice had been served upon the management. The said award was challenged by the respondents-management respondents by filing CWP No.14808 of 1995 - The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation (Markfed) Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Bathinda and another - before this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.1995 and the petitioner was taken back in service of the Markfed as daily aily paid Chowkidar with continuity of service, vide order dated 02.01.1996. The The petitioner also challenged the award dated 25.04.1995 before this Court by filing CWP No.6167 of 1996 - Harbhajan Singh v.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and others - claiming 100% backwages from the date of termination. The said writ pet petition was partly allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.01.1998 and the petitioner was held entitled to 50% backwages and the arrears of backwages were restricted for three years only.
3. In the meanwhile, petitioner submitted representation dated 07.06.1996 for regularisation of his services and when no action was taken on the said representation, he filed CWP No.11849 of 1996 -
2 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -3- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 Harbhajan Singh v. The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing rketing Federation Limited and another - claiming regularisation of his services w.e.f. the date of service of person junior to him was regularised. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.08.1996 with a direction to respon respondent No.1, therein, to consider and decide the representation dated 07.06.1996 07.06.1996, within a period of three months. In compliance with the said order, petitioner was offered regular appointment as Chowkidar vide order dated 17.12.1996. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming regularisation w.e.f. 18.01.1994, the date when person junior to him, namely, Shiv Narain has been regularised.
4. The case set up by the petitioner in the present petition is that one similarly situated employee, namely, Shiv Narain, daily wage Chowkidar was appointed on 19.04.1987 and his services were also terminated in the same manner on 01.03.1988. He also approached the Labour Court and he was also ordered to be reinstated in service and thereafter his services services have been regularised vide order dated 11.01.1995 w.e.f. 18.01.1994.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of person junior to petitioner, namely, Shiv Narain have been regularised w.e.f. 18.01.1994, therefore, petitioner ccannot be denied the said date of regularisation and consequently, the order of regularisation dated 17.12.1996 be modified to that extent and the petitioner be regularised w.e.f. 18.01.1994.
3 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -4- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
6. Per contra,, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the petitioner was not in service when services of his junior, namely, Shiv Narain were regularised, therefore, petitioner cannot claim regularisation w.e.f. 18.01.1994 when his services were regularised.
7. I have heard learned counsel for th the parties and perused the record.
8. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on daily wage basis on 01.09.1986 and his services were terminated on 01.03.1988, which was set aside vide award dated 25.04.1995 and he was ordered ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and thereafter his services have been regularised vide order dated 17.12.1996. Shiv Narain, who was also engaged on daily wage basis as Chowkidar on 19.04.1987 and thereafter his services were terminated on 01.03.1988 and he also challenged his termination before the Labour Court and he was also ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and thereafter his services have been regularised w.e.f. 18.01.1994.
9. The Division Bench ch of this Court in Ajmer Singh versus State of Haryana and others' 2002(1) RSJ 479 has held that once an employee is reinstated in service with continuity, he is deemed to be on duty for all intents and purposes and the benefit accruing on the basis of such deemed reinstatement has to be granted as he if was actually on duty from the date when his services have been illegally terminated.
4 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -5- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
10. Similar claim was accepted by this Court, vide Judgement dated 24.01.2017 passed in CWP No.17150 of 2015 titled aas 'Pawan Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others', wherein it was held that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in service, as per regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 of the State Government and the above said Judgement has been upheld upheld by the Division Bench of this Court, vide Judgement dated 02.12.2022 passed in LPA No.688 of 2021 in case titled as 'State of Haryana and others versus Balwinder Singh and others' wherein, it has been held as under:
under:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx " 118. Thus keeping ng in view the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari & others, (2010) 9 SCC 247,, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judges were well justified in directing consideration for regularization as the claim was on the basis of the policies which were in effect and were supplemented by others. The persons had worked for the requisite period of time and were seeking regularization as per the policies which were invogue at that point of time and they were not continuing in service on aaccount of any litigation and did not have any interim orders in their favour. The Apex Court had noticed that the true effect of the directions passed in Uma Devi (supra) was that persons who had been continuing for the period of 10 years without interim oorders of the Tribunals and the employer had not undertaken the exercise of regularization within 6 months of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) then the exercise was to be taken for the limited view and it would not 5 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -6- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 disentitle the employees for their right ffor regularization as a one--time measure. Appointment of persons which was illegal and irregular was clarified to the extent that the illegality would be only if the appointee did not possess the required minimum qualifications and the irregularity would be if the person had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection but had the prescribed qualifications. In the present cases we are dealing with cases of Class-IV IV employees employed as Beldar/Mali/Labourer and, therefore, the ssaid legal impediment would not come in the way. Relevant observations reads as under:
5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against `regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulf fulfilled :
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular.
Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum 6 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -7- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been sel selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.
Umadevi casts a duty upon the
concerned Government or
instrumentality, to take steps to
regularize the services of those
irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of court courts or tribunals, as a one-time time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10.4.2006).
6. The term `one-time time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspectiv perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years with without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.
7 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -8- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
7. At the end of six months ths from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily daily-
wage/adhoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one one-
time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month peri period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one one-time exercise should consider all daily daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals.
unals. If any employer had held the one one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation tinuation of the one one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous 8 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -9- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served ed for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the date of decision sion in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time time measure.
9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi devi or thereafter."
119. The Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Kamal Prasad and others, (2014) 7 SCC 223 while dismissing the appeals of the State and upholding the judgment of the High Court, regarding the regularization 9 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -10- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 orders in favour off the Junior Engineers who had been working for 29 years was held to be legal and by holding that they were covered under the exceptions made in Uma Devi (supra).. Resultantly, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Olga Tellis & others Vs. Bomb Bombay Municipal Corporation & others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 545, it was held that the High Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the action of the State was arbitrary and it shocked the conscious of the Court that the persons had worked for 29 years and had be been discharging permanent nature of duties. Therefore, it was held that the judgment could not be vitiated on account of any erroneous finding or suffering from any error in law.
120. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that a window had been kept open by the State that the policies dated 17.06.1997, 05.11.1999, 01.10.2003, 10.02.2004 were to be applied to persons who had not been regularized and, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the counsel for the State to argue that the policies stood withdr withdrawn. The learned Single Judges were justified in issuing directions for consideration. As noticed above the claim is based on a legal right for seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus and in such circumstances it cannot be said that the learned Single Judgess were in error in allowing the writ petitions. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. All pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. "
11. To the same effect is the jjudgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.616-617 617 of 2016 (arising out of various SLP (C) Nos.9965-9974 Nos.9965 9974 of 2016 and connected cases) titled as 'State of Haryana and others v. Khajjan Singh and others' decided on 09.01.2024 wherein it has been held as under:
under:-
10 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -11- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 xxx xxx xxx xxx " The writ petitions were filed by Respondents seeking regularization of their services from the dates from which their juniors were regularized by the State as per regularization policy dated 01.10.2003. It was averred that even after fulfilling the criteri criteria as specified the juniors to them were extended the benefit of regularisation.
Learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.05.2014 allowed the writ petitions and granted the relief, as prayed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein as thus:
72. ........By applying these standards of primary "72.
review of administrative action in the present cases where the fortunate ones secured their freedom of regularization without court intervention but which has resulted in hostile and invidious discrimination are re declared bad in the eyes of law. The rule of law is clearly against man's inhumanity to man. This kind of deprivation is in contravention of the natural law of equality among citizens who are or have become equally placed in all respects of basic rights possessed by both of them as human beings even if there were no written constitution or statutory law protecting workers against unfair discrimination and unfair labour practice inter se of those who deserve equality of treatment with their counterparts obtained btained through the tardy process of Labour Court trial resulting in favourable awards by the deeming fiction of law, even then the Court must step in to vanquish subjugation of the spirit. No person aggrieved should be turned away thinking the Court faile failed in coming to aid by restoring the unfair imbalance created by the administrator.
11 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -12- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
73. On the conspectus of the above facts, law and the thread of judgments read together, and for the various reasons stated interconnecting the judicial decisions, the rights ts of the petitioners for ante dated regularization of services are declared in their favour and against the State.
74. The writ petitions are allowed. The orders of the respondent State declining representations of the petitioners for regularization in tthis batch of cases are nullified and set aside. In cases where regularization has been granted with effect from 2003 they shall be ante dated in terms of this judgment from the dates such petitioners were separated from their erstwhile juniors and fellow workers.
orkers. Accordingly, the State of Haryana would pass fresh orders in terms of this judgment in each case after the period of limitation prescribed for calling in question this order has expired." On filing of the appeal by State, learned Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgments passed on different dates, dismissed the LPA(s) filed by appellant(s) maintaining the order of learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the order of learned Division Bench is reproduced as under :
"[4] Learned Single Judge has followed the view earlier taken by this Court that where services of juniors are regularized without considering the claim of senior employee, such action of the authorities would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Conse Consequently, directions have been issued vide the order under appeal for regularization of services ervices of private private-respondents.
[5] The order of learned Single Judge was admittedly assailed by the State of Haryana firstly 12 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -13- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 in LPA No.1903 of 2014 (State of Haryana and others versus Jiyaji Sharma which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench vide order dated 21.01.2015. On that very day, another LPA No.1909 of 2014 (State of Haryana and another versus Sukhbir Singh was also dismissed.
[6] For the reasons assigned by this Court in Jiyaji Sharma's case (supra) coupled with the findings returned by learned Single Judge, as briefly noticed in para [2] above, we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed."
Challenging nging the impugned Judgments, present appeals were filed before this Court, but since the issue involved is similar in all matters, therefore they are tagged and taken together for hearing.
During the hearing, it has been brought to our notice that Speciall Leave Petition (C) Nos. 36871 of 2012; 17531 of 2014; and 25598 of 2014 filed in similar cases have been heard and dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 02.05.2014; 07.07.2014; and 12.09.2014 respectively. Further, it was also brought to our notice that hat while the present matters were pending, some of the respondents have been regularized and orders in this regard have been placed on the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and on perusing the orders of dismissal of the petitions pass passed by the coordinate benches in similar matters and also considering that some of the respondents have already been regularized by the appellants, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the question of law is left open.
13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -14- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 We further direct that the order passed by High Court shall now be complied within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, is/are disposed of.
12. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.' 2023 INSC 567 has held that the employee cannot be denied the benefit of regularization of his services, when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit. In the abovesaid judgement, udgement, it has been held as under:-
under:
xxx xxx xxx xxx "22.
22. At the outset, we would like to state that this a case of gross violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Appellant, who has been working in Respondent No. 3- Municipality since 1991, and was, subsequently, appointed as a clerk in 1996; hhas not been regularised in his service. Moreover, his several of his co co-employees (including juniors) have been regularised in service. The High Court's Order dated 20.06.2000 in Writ Petition No. 19555 of 1999 clearly shows that absorption has been given effect to vide Order dated 26.09.1996. The said writ petition was dismissed to the extent of entitlement of back dated appointment and arrears. However, the Respondents never paid any heed to such order and inordinately delayed the Appellant's appointment, while simultaneously absorbing other casual employees. Even the Appellant's service book records that Respondent No. 33- Municipality has absorbed the Appellant in view of the High Court's Order dated 20.06.2000 in Writ Petition No. 19555 (W) of 1999.
14 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -15- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
23. The Respondent has relied on Umadevi (supra) judgment to contend that there is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. The relev relevant portion of the factual position in Umadevi (supra) is being reproduced as hereunder:
"8.
8. ....the respondents therein who were temporarily engaged on daily wages in the Commercial Taxes Department in some of the districts of the State of Karnataka claim that hat they worked in the Department based on such engagement for more than 10 years and hence they are entitled to be made permanent employees of the Department, entitled to all the benefits of regular employees. They were engaged for the first time in the yyears 1985-86 86 and in the teeth of orders not to make such appointments issued on 33-7-1984. Though the Director of Commercial Taxes recommended that they be absorbed, the Government did not accede to that recommendation. These respondents thereupon approachedd the Administrative Tribunal in the year 1997 with their claim. The Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim finding that they had not made out a right either to get wages equal to that of others regularly employed or for regularisation. Thus, the applications lications filed were dismissed. The respondents approached the High Court of Karnataka challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal. It is seen that the High Court without really coming to grips with the question falling for decision in the ligh light of the findings of the Administrative Tribunal and the decisions of this Court, proceeded to order that they 15 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -16- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 are entitled to wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service with effect ffect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. It may be noted that this gave retrospective effect to the judgment of the High Court by more than 12 years. The High Court also issued a command to the State to consider their cases for regularisation ularisation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of that order. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that, whether they were appointed before 11-7-1984, a situation covered by the decision of this Court in Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka [(1990) 2 SCC 396 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 274 : (1990) 12 ATC 902 : (1990) 1 SCR 544] and the scheme framed pursuant to the direction thereunder, or subsequently, since they have worked for a period of 10 years, they were entitled to equal pay for equal work from the very inception of their engagement on daily wages and were also entitled to be considered for regularisation in their posts."
24. However, in the present case, as we have observed, the Appellant ellant was appointed as a casual worker in 1991. While the services of other co-employees employees were regularised, that of the Appellant and some others was left out. The High Court in its Order dated 03.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 17892 of 2010 has also recorded the Respondents' submissions that resolutions pertaining to the Appellant's absorption are already in place and the same have been sent for necessary approval. Therefore, the judgment rendered in Umadevi (supra) will not apply to the facts and circumstances cumstances of the present case.
16 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -17- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
25. Now, coming to the Reasoned Order dated 07.03.2012 passed by Respondent No. 2 herein, which states that in pursuance of the High Court's order dated 24.08.2009 to not to give effect to the instruction of the Labour Department tment (pertaining to regularisation of casual employees) as communicated in the circulars dated 13.08.1979, 28.08.1980 and 13.03.1996; the Appellant's services cannot be regularised. However, what is to be seen here is that, as early as 2002, i.e., the Hig High Court's Order dated 20.06.2000 in Writ Petition No. 19555 of 1999 clearly shows that absorption has been given effect to vide Order dated 26.09.1996. Moreover, as has been observed above, the Respondents had also submitted before the High Court in Writ P Petition No. 17892 of 2010 that resolutions pertaining to the Appellant's absorption are already in place and the same have been sent for necessary approval. Apart from this, as is evident from the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the non non-
regularisation tion of the services of the Appellant in the present case, is, in our view, a violation of the fundamental rights of equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State, as enshrined under Article 14 and Articl Article 16(1) of the Constitution, respectively. It is to be noted that the Appellant has retired in 2021.
26. The facts of U.P. SEB (supra) are similar to the case at hand. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder:
"3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") had prayed for regularisation of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred ed to as "the Electricity Board").
17 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -18- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 33-4- 1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 33-4-1997 is Annexure P-22 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minist Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State Government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Bo Board will start working in the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position".
4. Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board.
5. Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28-11-1996 1996 to regularise the services of its employees working on daily daily-wage basis from before 4-5-1990 1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose.
6. The contention of the writ petitioners (the respondents ondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28-11-1996 1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working orking from before 44-5-1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on dailywage basis.
7. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21-9-1998 1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who 18 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -19- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, ety, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
8. We are in agreement with the view ta taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge.
9. The writ petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4-5-1990 1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same mann manner and position". In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28-11-1996.
........
19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 19 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violate violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face."
27. The principles of natural justi justice, too, demand that the Appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit.
19 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -20- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998
28. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken in the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017. The Appellant herein, in our considered opinion, is entitled to receive back wages and benefits from 1991, along with an interest of 10%.
29. Accordingly, the Appeal ppeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.12.2019, passed in MAT No. 611 of 2018 and CAN No. 10038/2018 is hereby set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs.
costs."
13. To the same effect is the judgement udgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Ajmer Singh' (Supra) and of the Single Bench dated 20.04.2021 passed in CWP No.19793 of 2017 titled as 'Bhoop Singh (since deceased) through his LR v/s State of Haryana and others, others against which LPA No.761 of 2021, preferred by the State of Haryana, was also dismissed, vide order dated 31.01.2024.
14. In 'Ushaben Joshi versus Union of India and others' 2024 INSC 624, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that similarly ilarly placed employees cannot be discriminated and directed regularization of worker, who served for 30 years. The relevant paras of said judgement udgement are reproduced as under:-
under:
xxx xxx xxx xxx " 17. The respondents have not indicated anything in the affidavit vit filed in pursuance of the order dated 27th February, 2024, that the nature of duties or the hours of work being performed by Smt. K.M. Vaghela were any different from that of the appellant. Thus, the defence taken by the respondents for their decision not to confirm 20 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -21- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 the appellant in services that she was only performing duties as a contingency worker(water woman) for four hours a day is not substantiated from any acceptable material on record. Indisputably, the appellant continuously served the Departme Department for more than three decades as a contingency 'water woman'. Keeping in view the fact that an employee similarly placed but inducted in service after nearly six years from the date of employment of the appellant with the respondent respondent-Department has been conferred nferred the benefits of confirmation in service by way of appointment to the post of MTS, the appellant is entitled to claim the same benefits.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the appellant at par with Smt. K.M. Vaghela and shall pass the order of regularisation/appointment as MTS in favour of the appellant, on similar terms as was done in the case of Smt. K.M. Vaghela. The order of regularisation will be effective ctive from the date on which, Smt. K.M. Vaghela was appointed as MTS with all consequential benefits. Compliance of this order shall be effected within a period of three months from the date of this order. "
15. Adverting to the facts of the present case case, once services of the similarly situated person, person, who was junior to the petitioner, have been regularized by the respondent department, there is no justification for denying the said benefit from the same date to the petitioner, as the same would be discriminatory discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for regularisation w.e.f. 18.01.1994 when 21 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155227 -22- CWP-16877 16877 of 1998 services of his junior, namely, Shiv Narain were regularised, with all consequential benefits and the same shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand stand(s) disposed of.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
19.11.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
22 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 05:31:50 :::