Discrimination in regularization of services violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, mandating equal treatment for similarly situated employees.

ORDER :

1.The petitioners were appointed as Drivers on ad hoc basis under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rule, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’) in the year 2007, after undergoing the selection process. The ad hoc period was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the respondent - High Court vide order dated 17.07.2009 while dealing with the similar situated Class 4^th employees, who were appointed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002, regularized their ad hoc services from the date of their initial appointment. The respondent-High Court on 22.06.2013, regularized the present petitioners as drivers, who were appointed on ad hoc basis between 27.10.2007 and 03.09.2011, after putting them to the screening committee for regularizing their services from the date of such order.

2. In the meanwhile, certain other 43 employees appointed between 2007 to 2011 as the petitioner, who were basically Class 4^th employees appointed on ad hoc basis under the similar Rule 16 of the Rules of 2002 and were regularized from the initial date of their appointment, were sought to be reversed in timeline imparting benefit of regularization to be given from the date of the order of regularization of their services reducing the benefit from the actual date of appointment. The order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1958/2016 (Sohan Kapur & Ors. Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan), which was allowed vide order dated 08.03.2019 and the order of revision of regularization from the initial date of appointment to the later date of passing the order was interfered and quashed. The order dated 08.03.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is reproduced as follows :-

This writ petition has been filed to seek regularisation of services from the date of initial appointment and, for it, to suitably modify the order dated 22.6.2013 (Annexure-1), whereby, services of the petitioners were regularised from the date of the order. The consequential prayer is to give benefit of seniority apart from other benefits.

It is stated that the petitioners were initially appointed on urgent temporary basis under rule 16 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules of 2002’). The order, however, shows appointment to be on ad hoc basis. The services of the petitioners were then regularised vide order dated 22.6.2013 from the date of the said order. It was after screening of the candidates by the Screening Committee in consonance to the Rules of 2002. The services were regularised after initial appointment of the petitioners between the year 2009 till 2011 thus those appointed in the year 2011 could get benefit of regularisation within two years, whereas, those appointed in the year 2009 could get benefit of regularisation after four years. The main grievance of the petitioners is in regard to discriminatory treatment with those appointed along with the petitioners and subsequently. They have been given benefit of regular pay scale by regularising their services from the initial date of appointment.

A reference of the order passed for it on 17.4.2013 (Annexure-4) has been given. Therein, appointment of the employees named therein was also made under rule 16 of the Rules of 2002. The date of appointment has also been given which is from January, 2009 till April, 2009. Their services said to have been regularised vide order dated 17.7.2007. It is with effect from their date of appointment. The services of those appointed in the year 2009 could not have otherwise been regularised by the order dated 17.7.2007 passed almost two years prior to their appointment.

The regularisation of their services is from the date of appointment and not from the date of passing of the order thus discrimination has been caused between similarly situated employees. The prayer is accordingly to treat similarly placed employees at par to avoid violation of Article 16 of the Constitu