2018 Supreme(P&H) 3649

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mahesh Grover, Raj Shekhar Attri, JJ.
Ramphal Dangi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 2625 of 2012
Decided On : 12-01-2018

Headnote:

The Court held that the retrospective operation of the Haryana Civil Service of Engineers, Group A, Public Health Engineering Department Act, 2009 (2009 Rules) is impermissible as it violates the legitimate expectations of employees and deprives them of their right to promotion. The Court also held that the classification created by the 2009 Rules between the Civil and Mechanical Engineering cadres is arbitrary and discriminatory, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the official respondents to undertake the determination of seniority, etc., in the light of its observations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are engineers in the Mechanical cadre of the Haryana Civil Service of Engineers, Group A, Public Health Engineering Department, challenged the Haryana Civil Service of Engineers, Group A, Public Health Engineering Department Act, 2009 (2009 Rules) on the grounds that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners argued that the 2009 Rules were arbitrary and discriminatory as they restricted the promotion of Mechanical cadre engineers to the post of Executive Engineer, while Civil cadre engineers could be promoted to the posts of Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, and Engineer-in-Chief. The petitioners also argued that the retrospective operation of the 2009 Rules violated their legitimate expectations and deprived them of their right to promotion.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the retrospective operation of the 2009 Rules was impermissible as it violated the legitimate expectations of employees and deprived them of their right to promotion. The Court also held that the classification created by the 2009 Rules between the Civil and Mechanical Engineering cadres was arbitrary and discriminatory, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed the official respondents to undertake the determination of seniority, etc., in the light of its observations.

Issues: 1. Whether the retrospective operation of the 2009 Rules is impermissible? 2. Whether the classification created by the 2009 Rules between the Civil and Mechanical Engineering cadres is arbitrary and discriminatory?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the retrospective operation of the 2009 Rules is impermissible as it violates the legitimate expectations of employees and deprives them of their right to promotion. The Court relied on the principle that a person who gains employment is subject to rules and develops a legitimate expectation of future prospects at the threshold itself and has every right to choose or refuse employment if he perceives bleak future prospects. The Court also held that once an employee binds himself to the rigors of the rules in a service, the benefits that accrue to him or are assured to him cannot ordinarily be denied by an executive action. In the instant case, the 1995 Rules which held the field prior to 2009 Rules envisaged a common cadre with the seniority based on the length of service and promotion flowing in terms of Rule 9 from the common cadre on the basis of merit and suitability. With the introduction of the 2009 Rules, the entire seniority and the chances of promotion beyond the level of Executive Engineer in the case of Mechanical cadre, have been thwarted. 2. The Court held that the classification created by the 2009 Rules between the Civil and Mechanical Engineering cadres is arbitrary and discriminatory, and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the classification is not based on any intelligible differentia and does not have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislation. The Court also held that the classification is manifestly arbitrary as it results in the denial of equal opportunity for promotion to the Mechanical cadre engineers.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned provisions of the 2009 Rules. The Court directed the official respondents to undertake the determination of seniority, etc., in the light of its observations.