IMPORTANT POINT : Regularisation in service can be ordered on the ground of parity.

Judgment

Public employment means an employment by a State, be it temporary or permanent. The major concern nowadays is unemployment, a person has a choice either to stay unemployed or accept employment with any kind of exploitative terms being offered by the employer. These employees have enough knowledge of getting terminated anytime even after discharging their services on a meager amount for decades without getting same salary and condition of services as given to the class IV employees, as such the government cannot be provided an escape route to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, this Article declares that there shall be equality before law and the equal protection of law.

If a person is not having feeling of belongingness within an organization, he will not put forward his best efforts. The sense of belongingness arises only when he feels that he will not turn out of employment anytime and at the whims of the government. The security of work should as far as possible, be assured to the employee so that he may contribute the maximum efforts for the development. Government in particular should not allow workers to remain as temporary employees for an unreasonable long period of time; this kind of exploitation of decades makes a temporary employee suffer to the great extent.

1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners herein are seeking direction upon the respondents to regularize services of the petitioners against the Class-IV posts in the same as has been adopted in the case of other similarly placed Consolidated Workers, on the ground taken in the writ petition.

Brief Facts:

2. The petitioners have been appointed as Consolidated Workers in the respondent-Board initially for a period specified in the order. The said terms of engagement was extended from time to time.

3. As per the policy decision taken by the respondent Board, an employee engaged on daily rated/Consolidated Worker, after completion of seven years of service, is entitled to regularization against class IV post.

4. The respondents are stated to have, from time to time, regularized the services of various Consolidated Workers, thereby, implementing the Policy decision taken by the Board in this behalf. The similar claim of the petitioners, however, despite making various representations has been ignored by the respondents without any plausible reasons, meaning thereby that the respondents have implemented the policy decision only in respect of their favorites in total disregard of the fact that the petitioners were appointed much prior to the Consolidated Workers, who have been regularized by the respondent Board. The petitioners and the persons, who have been regularized in terms of orders No. 887-B of 2006 dated 28.11.2006, 413-B of 2012 dated 27.07.2012 and that of order No. 17-B of 2018 dated 02.01.2018, in law, constitute one class, therefore, the petitioners cannot be subjected to invidious discrimination in the matter of regularization. By not regularizing the services of the petitioners, the petitioners have been subjected to hostile and invidious discrimination, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners are similarly situated with those who have been regularized from time to time by the respondents.

5. The petitioners are continuously working on consolidated basis in the respondent Board and their period of engagement has been extended from time to time and they are discharging the same for as is being discharged by a regular employee. The petitioners have worked on meager consolidated wages only with a hope that their services would be regularized in light of the policy decision taken by the respondent Board, the doctrine of legitimate expectations, covers the case of the petitioners.

6. Upon notice respondents appeared and filed their reply, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioners shown at Serial Nos.7, 8, 9, 13, 72, 87, 97, 98 & 99 are not working as consolidated workers as on date. Mor