The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed the Haryana government to pass the necessary order to regularize the services of Class-IV employees who have been working under it as a daily wager for 30 years and observed that not regularizing the services of the petitioners amounted to a violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution considering the admitted fact that the petitioners are working with the respondents since the year 1993-95.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioners, Class IV employees seeking directions to the State to regularize their services. The petitioners were working as a daily wager under Municipal Corporation, Faridabad on various posts viz. Beldar, Masson, Electrician Helpers, etc. and were appointed as such since the year 1993 to 1995.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that services of the similarly-situated employees have already been regularized but the petitioners have been left out for the reasons best known to the respondents and further a list of such employees who had joined after the petitioners had joined the services, has also been attached to show that the respondents have discriminated against the petitioners who have to their credit more than 30 years of service till date. Further, it was argued that the action of the respondent in rejecting their claim for regularization is most arbitrary and is in violation of the well-settled proposition of law. The ground of rejection of petitioners’ claim for regularization is primarily due to non-fulfilling of educational qualification by the petitioners whereas the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and have discriminatorily granted relaxation of educational qualification and age limit to other similarly situated daily wagers.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents presented their reasons for refusing to grant the regularization of services in a tabulated form and further stated that some of the petitioners have already filed a civil suit and this fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition by the petitioners and thus the petition deserves to be dismissed since the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the instant case is a glaring example to demonstrate the lethargic and callous approach of the State and its instrumentalities, who are satisfied with engagement of petitioners on daily wage basis for the obvious fact that the financial liability is minimum as against the responsibility and primary duty bestowed with it under the Constitution of India, as envisaged under Articles 14 & 16 that no action of the State should be arbitrary and it shall also not smell of discrimination and inequality. Further, the court stated that such an act on the part of State authorities was tantamount to unfair labour practice and wrongful means to extract the maximum from a poor class-IV category employee and in return give them the possible minimum under the garb of DC rates.
Further, it was noted that in case, the petitioners had been regularized in time (2003) under the policy, they might have earned not only the promotion, but annual increments and allowances like dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance etc of which they are being deprived of which has resulted into creation of inequality among the regular cadre employees with the petitioners not only for emoluments and allowances, but for sense of security in service as well.
The court referred to the judgment in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, in which it was held that "by and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization."
It was further stated that in the present case, petitioners have been working since 1993 i.e., more than 3 decades as of date, but for one or the other reason taking excuses, the respondent-State has absolved itself from the duty as a socialistic welfare State, which otherwise tantamount to unfair labour practice or unfair means on its part to avail the services of such petitioners to their own advantage, who have devoted more than 60 % of life span for a meagre amount, which may not be even sufficient to maintain themselves what to talk of their dependents in the family.
The court said that not regularizing the services of the petitioners amounted to a violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution considering the admitted fact that the petitioners have been working with the respondents since the year 1993-95. Public employment is a facet of the right to equality envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution. The State is a model employer, its right to create posts and recruit people emanates from the statutes or statutory rules and/or Rules framed under the provision appended to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is obligatory on the State that the recruitment Rules are framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all its citizens, the bench observed.
The decision of the Court:
The court directed the State to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of service in view of the policy and to pass necessary orders regularizing their services, within a period of one month and further directed them to pay 6 per cent interest per annum on the arrears from the date they became due till the date of its realization to which the petitioners are found entitled on regularization into service.
Case Title: Ram Rattan and ors. vs State of Haryana and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Case No.: CWP-34585-2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. RS Randhawa
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Dimple Jain and Mr. Hitesh Pandit
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
