Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4155
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Nafe Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 25518 of 2015
Decided On : 04-12-2018
Sandeep Thakan, Adv., Safia Gupta, Adv., K.K. Gupta, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the denial of regularization based on a later policy, when it results in disparity with a junior co-worker, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Regularization - Employment Dispute - Instructions of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana dated 07.03.1996 - Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks parity with a co-worker for regularization of service. The petitioner was reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages, but his services were later regularized from a later date than his junior co-worker.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for regularization with effect from the same date as his junior co-worker was denied on the basis of a later regularization policy, which was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of the petitioner's claim for regularization from the same date as his junior co-worker, based on a later regularization policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of the petitioner's claim for regularization based on a later policy was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and directed the petitioner to be brought on the regular rolls from the date his junior co-worker was made regular with all consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to be regularized with effect from the same date as his junior co-worker, regardless of any policy, on the ground of parity, and awarded consequential benefits at 9% interest.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. - Petitioner seeks parity with other co-workerrespondent No.4 herein who has been granted benefit of regularization in service while the petitioner has been denied the same on flimsy grounds. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages on 03.08.1988 as Electrician Helper by the respondent No.3 (Education Board). Later on, without assigning any reason, his services were terminated on 31.03.1989 and aggrieved therefrom, he approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar. Vide an award dated 03.02.1995, he was reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from the date of demand notice. However, the said award was challenged by the respondents by way of Civil Writ Petition before this Court. Vide an order dated 21.07.2014, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-
"The impugned award dated 03.02.1995 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Labour Court, Hissar, is modified to the extent that respondent No.2 shall not be entitled to claim any back wages. However, the benefit of continuity of service, as awarded, will be given, while considering his case for regularization, as undertaken above."
2. After being reinstated as per orders passed by this Court (supra), the petitioner sought his regularization w.e.f. 01.02.1996 in view of the fact that his services were restored with benefit of continuity of service with other consequential benefits except his claim for back wages. The petitioner kept following up his case of regularization with the respondents. He has also been seeking parity with one Mr. Ved Parkash who is concededly junior to the petitioner and his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.02.1996. The petitioner, therefore, has been staking his claim with effect from the date his junior was regularized.
3. Having waited for a reasonable long period, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 15.02.2015 to the respondents for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.02.1996. The same too did not yield any result which led to filing of a writ petition in this Court. The said writ petition was decided with the direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice by passing a speaking order within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Pursuant thereto vide impugned order dated 18.11.2015 passed by respondent No.3-The Secretary, Board of School Education, Haryana, petitioner's claim to seek regularization w.e.f. 01.02.1996 was negated and his services were regularized w.e.f. 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-8).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relies on the Instructions of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana dated 07.03.1996 (Annexurre P-3) which envisage as below:-
"The casual and daily rated employees who have completed five year service on 31.01.1996 and were in service on 31.01.1996 shall be regularized provided they have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year and the break in service in any year is not more than one month at a time."
5. He also relies on the Instructions of even date i.e. 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-4) again from the office of the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana which envisage that the work charged/casual/daily wage employees who have been working for the past 03 years in service as on 31.01.1996 shall be eligible for regularization. He contends that one Ved Parkash who is admittedly junior to the petitioner and was similarly situated inasmuch as his services were also terminated vide an award dated 17.04.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar. Later on, Ved Parkash was taken back in service by the respondents. A petition bearing CWP No.1140 of 1996 was filed by the respondents/department to challenge the award qua Ved Parkash which was dismissed by this Court. In compliance of the award dated 17.04.1995 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar, services of Ved Parkash were regularized vide order dated 07.02.2000 w.e.f. 01.02.1996 keeping
