Rajinder Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 548 P&H

       CWP-19537-2020                                                    1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                               AT CHANDIGARH

       208                                     CWP-19537-2020
                                               Date of decision: 12.02.2021

       Rajender Kumar Sharma and others
                                                                   .....Petitioners

                          versus

       State of Haryana and others
                                                                   ....Respondents

       CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri

       Present:     Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate
                    for the petitioners.

                    Ms. Anupama Sharma, Advocate
                    for respondents No.2 & 3.

                        ****
       GIRISH AGNIHOTRI, J. (Oral)

The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing on

account of restrictions due to outbreak of pandemic COVID-19.

Petitioner-Rajender Kumar Sharma and three others, have

jointly filed the present petition inter alia with a prayer for issuance of a

writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant the

petitioners benefit of adhoc services, for all purposes of seniority promotion

etc., along with further prayers as mentioned in the writ petition.

Records of the case show that on 18.11.2020, this Court had

passed the following order:-

"Petitioners - Rajender Kumar Sharma and three others have jointly filed the present petition inter alia with a prayer to direct the respondent to grant the benefits of adhoc services for all purposes of seniority promotion

For Subsequent orders see CWP-1890-2021 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH AGNIHOTRI 1 of 4

etc., with a further prayer to direct the respondents to release the monetary benefits i.e. the difference of arrears of pay scale, arrears of ACP etc. accruing to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners based on pleadings submits that petitioner No.1 and 2 were initially appointed in the respondent Corporation for the post of Clerk on daily wage basis. Thereafter, they were made adhoc and ultimately their services were regularised on respective posts. There are pleadings to the similar effect qua petitioners No.3 and 4 as well. In para 3 of the petition, it has also been mentioned that services of the petitioners were regularised w.e.f. April 1993 on the same post of Clerk. Learned counsel, however, submits that CWP No.673 of 2008 titled as 'Nand Lal Taneja Vs. Faridabad Complex Administration', was disposed of vide judgment dated 18.02.2008, wherein directions were issued to respondent to count the adhoc service rendered by the petitioners for all purposes i.e. seniority, promotion etc., with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel further submits that vide order dated 04.02.2009, the Division Bench of this Court had affirmed the aforementioned judgment. It is then submitted that even SLP filed was dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2009.

Learned counsel then refers to further order dated 21.05.2012 passed by this Court, the writ petition therein was disposed of in view of the aforementioned judgment i.e. Nand Lal Taneja's case (supra). Learned counsel, however, submits that since the petitioners are also employees of the same respondent corporation i.e. Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, they are also entitled to the same/similar relief. It is contended by learned counsel that for the same/similar relief, the petitioners

For Subsequent orders see CWP-1890-2021 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH AGNIHOTRI 2 of 4

had submitted a legal notice dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure P-17), however, no decision has been taken by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, till date.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ravinder Budhwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is appearing through video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

In the meantime, learned State counsel is directed to seek specific instructions as to why the present case be not disposed of in the same terms as the judgment of Nand Lal Taneja's case (supra), which has been relied upon even subsequently in various orders by this Court.

Let specific instructions be taken within three weeks from today.

In case, the petitioners are entitled of the benefits, same be released to them. If, however, for any other lawful reasons, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefits, specific affidavit be filed within three weeks from today.

List on 16.12.2020."

Today, on the resumed hearing of the case, learned counsel for

respondents No.2 & 3 submits that in the order dated 08.09.2017 (Annexure

P-14), passed by this Court in CWP-23703-2015, this Court had allowed the

writ petition in the same terms as in Nand Lal Taneja vs. Faridabad

Complex Administration etc.(CWP-673-1989), but it was made subject to

the outcome of SLP that was stated to be pending. She submits that the

present writ petition can be disposed of in the same terms as in order dated

08.09.2017 (Annexure P-14).

For Subsequent orders see CWP-1890-2021 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH AGNIHOTRI 3 of 4

Since, counsel for both the parties to the present case are

agreeable that the present case can be disposed of in terms of the order

dated 08.09.2017, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present

writ petition in the same terms as in CWP-23703-2015 titled as Hari Ram

Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was decided by

this Court on 08.09.2017.

Ordered accordingly.

                                                      (GIRISH AGNIHOTRI)
                                                            JUDGE
       12.02.2021
       anju rani

             Whether speaking/ reasoned:             Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                     Yes/No

For Subsequent orders see CWP-1890-2021 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH AGNIHOTRI 4 of 4