Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 9 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048547
CWP-17694-2012 -1- 2024:PHHC:048547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
209 CWP-17694-2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision :09.04.2024
Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, grievance of the petitioner is that plea of
the petitioner for regularization of his services has been rejected by the
respondents vide impugned order dated 06.08.2012 (Annexure P/12) hence,
the respondents are liable to be directed to grant the benefit of regularization
to the petitioner as extended to the similarly situated employees, who were
similarly qualified as petitioner.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the petition, the petitioner was
appointed as Water Pump Operator-II on 01.09.1981 and continued working
as such till 06.12.1989 when the services of the petitioner were terminated,
which action of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner before the
Labour Court and vide order dated 13.02.1995, the Labour Court set aside
the said order of termination of the services of the petitioner and reinstated
him in service with continuity in service alongwith full back wages.
Thereafter, respondent-department had filed CWP-8027-1997 challenging
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048547
CWP-17694-2012 -2- 2024:PHHC:048547
the said award of the Labour Court, which petition was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 01.07.1997, which judgment has already been upheld
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 15.01.1999.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while the
petitioner was out of service, the respondents had issued a policy for
regularization of group-C and group-D employees and the large number of
employees, who were similarly situated as the petitioner, were regularized
hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of regularization of his
service as Water Pump Operator-II with effect from the date the said benefit
of regularization has been granted to the similarly situated employees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents
themselves have given information under the Right to Information Act,
2005 (Annexure P/11) that similarly situated employees, who were though,
matriculate but not having ITI qualification have been regularized in service
but still claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from the date
the similarly situated employees have been regularized as Water Pump
Operator-II has been declined vide impugned order dated 06.08.2012
(Annexure P/12), which order is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner
is not eligible for regularization of his services as he was not having ITI
qualification though, it is a conceded that as of now, the petitioner, who is
continuously working since 1981 i.e. from the last 35 years has also
obtained ITI qualification.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it is a
matter of fact that certain matriculate employees have already been
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048547
CWP-17694-2012 -3- 2024:PHHC:048547
regularized as Water Pump Operator but the same cannot be treated as
precedent as only the employees having qualification for the post are
entitled to be considered for regularization and in any case, regularization of
the services of the petitioner can only be given from the date he obtained the
ITI qualification.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. The petitioner is working with the respondent-department from
the last 35 years. It is also a matter of fact that certain similarly situated
employees, who were matriculate but did not had ITI qualification, have
been granted benefit of regularization of service. Once, the similarly situated
employees have already been regularized in service, denying the said benefit
to the petitioner amounts to discrimination. Once, the respondents
regularized the services of the employees, who were having same
qualification as petitioner, the said benefit of regularization should have
been extended to the petitioner also. No valid justification has come on
record to treat the petitioner differently from the employees, who were
matriculate but did not have ITI qualification but still their services have
already been regularized. In the absence of any justification, act of the
respondents in not granting the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on
the ground that petitioner did not had ITI qualification amounts to
discrimination.
9. Further, keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in
CWP-18331-1997 titled as Prem Chand vs. State of Haryana and others
decided on 02.12.2015 wherein, it has been held that once the employees
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048547
CWP-17694-2012 -4- 2024:PHHC:048547
have been working on Class-III post of Water Pump Operator from five
years, they are entitled for the benefit of regularization of their services.
The Court had relied upon the judgment passed in CWP-18974-1998 titled
as Abdul Kayyum and another vs. State of Haryana and others decided on
26.09.2000 and a direction was given that all the similarly situated
employees are to be granted the benefit of regularization on the post of
Water Pump Operator from the date of their initial appointment, which
judgment in Prem Chand (supra) has already been complied with by the
respondents. Once, while complying with the judgment of this Court in
Prem Chand (supra) employees, who were having matriculate qualification
have been granted the said benefit of regularization, the said benefit cannot
be denied to the petitioner .
10. Keeping in view the fact that it has been established before this
Court that the employees, who were matriculate and were not having ITI
qualification, have been regularized by the respondents as Water Pump
Operator from the date of their initial appointment, denying the said benefit
of regularization to the petitioner is discriminatory. Hence, the present
petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to regularize the services of the
petitioner from the date of his initial appointment.
11. Let the pay of the petitioner be fixed in the regular pay scale. It
is made clear that arrears of salary will only be granted from the date of
judgment in case of Prem Chand (supra) i.e. 02.12.2015.
12. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any is also disposed of.
April 09, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
