The High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that when a particular set of employees have been given relief by the Court then other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit, and not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the petitioner had worked with the respondents as a daily wage worker for a minimum of 240 days since 1997. His regularisation was governed by the 2006 policy. The petitioner had completed 8 years or more before the cut-off date and was considered and accordingly granted regularisation as per the policy. As per the judgment Rakesh Kumar v. State of HP, the decision was to grant benefits to individuals like the petitioner and subsequently the respondents had implemented the decision.
After analyzing the annexure it can be seen that the claim of arrears was restricted to three years from the date of filing the claim in the court. Through a letter, the respondents-state had decided that individuals like the petitioner who had not filed any petition would not be entitled to notional benefits of fixing of pay on competition of 8 years of contract service with 240 days in each calendar year and on an actual basis, it was decided that no arrears of three years would be given to an individual who had not filed a petition earlier. The current petition has been filed by the petitioner against the decision of the respondents to not grant arrears of pay and order of recovery from the petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the sole ground for non-grant of benefits to the petitioner is based on the reason that he had not filed a case seeking benefits from Rakesh Kumar’s case. The court then made it clear that no other ground is available to the state to defend its action as it is a well-settled principle of law that reasons are not like wine which matures over a period of time, the same was held in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others. The court then delved into the case of Rakesh Kumar and noted that it touches upon a policy matter, a scheme of regularisation.
It was also noted that the judgment was in rem with the intention to give benefits to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not and that is why it cast an obligation upon the authorities to extend the benefits to all similarly situated persons. The court also noted that in Rakesh Kumar’s case, there is no direction of the court to restrict the consequential benefits including the monetary benefit. In case of delay in approaching the court, in the previous case, it was noted that at most the interest on delayed payment can be denied but arrears of wages and other financial benefits cannot be denied.
The court further noted that even otherwise, when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, other identically situated persons shall be treated alike and not doing so would amount to discrimination and will be in violation of Article 14. The court also observed that the respondent’s plea with respect to delay is also not legally sustainable. The court then held that in case where the court has not restricted the benefits for a specific period, any guidelines, instructions, circulars, etc. issued by the department or executive decision of any other authority cannot restrict such benefits as it would amount to a modification of order of court by an authority having no jurisdiction to do so.
The decision of the Court:
The Court quashed the directions of the respondents and directed them to grant consequential benefits on an actual basis including salary, seniority, pay fixation pensionary benefits, if any as per the Rakesh Kumar Case.
Case Title: Mohinder Singh v State of HP & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Justice Bipin Chander Negi
Case no.: CWPOA No. 5286 of 2020.
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
