Contractual employees appointed before service regulations permitted such mode entitled to deemed regularization after one year with retrospective consequential benefits on parity, arrears limited to 3 years prior to filing.

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

The petitioners in both the petitions, being Conductors in the Respondent-Corporation have come up before this Court, seeking similar following reliefs:-

i) The respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of applicant after completion of one year with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments.

ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to implement their own memo/communication dated 4.2.2017 (annexure A-3) in its true and letter and spirit.

iii) That orders passed by the respondent vide which representations of the applicants have been rejected, may be declared null and void as contrary to factual as well legal aspect of the matter, and same may be quashed and set aside.

iv) Any other or further orders which this Administrative Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicants and against the respondents under law.

v) That order passed by the respondents on the representation of applicants may be declared as void and same may be quashed and set aside being contrary to the rules and settled legal position.

vi) That entire relevant record of the case may very kindly be summoned from respondents for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Precisely, the case set by Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, is that the petitioners were appointed as Conductors on contract basis in Respondent-Corporation, upon due selection/interview held in the year 2004-2005.

3(i). Grievance of petitioners is that at the time of their initial appointment on contract basis, there was no provision in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for appointment on contract basis. The aforesaid provision for contractual appointments was incorporated in the Service Regulations, by the Respondent-Corporation on 03.08.2006 [Annexure A-1]. It is the case of the petitioners that once the Respondent- Corporation has given the benefit of regular appointment/regularization after completion of one year’s of contractual service, as per existing practice in the Corporation, then the action of Respondent- Corporation in regularizing the petitioners after about 8 years in the month of December, 2012 was improper.

3(ii). In the above backdrop, Learned Counsel, submits that Respondent-Corporation had appointed petitioners as Conductors, on contract basis, during the years 2004-2005 when, no such provision for appointment on contractual basis existed in the Recruitment and Promotion Regulations notified by the Respondent-Corporation at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the Respondent-Corporation took a decision for making contractual employment only on 03.08.2006 and that too the aforesaid contractual mode of employment, incorporated in the regulations was to apply prospectively and the same could not have been applied retrospectively as has been done in the instant case. In these circumstances, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as regular Conductors on completion of one year of contractual service but were regularized in December, 2012 and they are also entitled for service benefits like pay fixation, ACPs, seniority and monetary benefits, etc. in terms of the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation , CWP