The court ruled that administrative decisions regarding employment regularization must avoid arbitrary discrimination and adhere to principles of equal treatment under the law.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred with following prayer:-

It is, therefore, prayed that this writ Petition may kindly be allowed and relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused, if this Hon'ble Tribunal so pleases and;

I) By way of issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2, may kindly be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory and may kindly be directed to be modify to the extent of granting benefit of regularization to the petitioner on the post of LDC w.e.f. the date on which his Juniors/similarly situated persons have been regularized i.e. from 19.3.1993.

II) By way of issue an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to make pay fixation of the petitioner in the regular pay scale of L.D.C. w.e.f. 19.3.1993 i.e. the date of regularization of his juniors and to further grant benefit of fixation in Revised Pay Scales Rules framed by the Respondent Government from time to time. He may also be granted benefit of Selection Scales on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service as well as benefit of seniority and promotion on the dates on which his juniors have been granted such benefits. Arrears of different of pay and other benefits may kindly be directed to be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12%per annum.

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the action of the respondent(s), whereby the respondent(s) have given the benefit of regularization on the post of LDC from 01.8.2012. He further submitted that identically placed persons were regularized from an earlier date, i.e., 31.03.1993. He further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Dharam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP and Anr. , order dated 19.08.2025; 2025 INSC 998 and Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. :2024 INSC 1034.

3. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) on the ground that when the order dated 31.03.1993 was passed in respect of other employees, they were given an opportunity to appear in the efficiency test and, after clearing the efficiency test, their services were regularized. He, however, admitted the fact that on the date of the efficiency test, i.e., 24.01.1993, the petitioner was out of service, as his services were terminated, before said test. He also placed reliance upon the judgment in cases of The Managing Director, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer, and Anr. versus Chiggan Lal & others S.B. Civil Appeal No.(s) 1875/2022 and submitted that it is the prerogative of the employer to regularize any employee and no employee can claim parity in the matter of regularization.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. The short controversy in the instant writ petition is only with regard to the date of regularization, as the services of petitioner has already been regularized on the post of LDC with effect from 01.08.2012 vide order dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure-5). The facts of the case clearly indicate that the services of the present petitioner were terminated on 15.10.1985 and the petitioner has raised a di