The court emphasized fair treatment and equal pay, mandating regularization of long-serving employees who were arbitrarily excluded from benefits, thereby reinforcing principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Judgment

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Office Order dated 25.01.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby respondent No.3 has rejected the claim for regularization of the petitioners. They further seek a direction to the respondents to regularize their services in view of various judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court and also on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

2. The petitioners are working under respondent No.3 – Municipal Corporation, Faridabad on various posts viz. Beldar, Masson, Electrician Helpers, Tubewell Helpers, Valveman etc. and were appointed as such since the year 1993 to 1995 (as tabulated in para 3 of the writ petition) and as such they have put in around 25 years of service when the writ petition was filed and till that time, the petitioners were drawing a meagre salary of around 5731/- in December, 2015. The petitioners made several representations including a joint representation on 11.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) wherein, the petitioners, while relying on the circulars dated 13.08.2014 (Annexure P-3) and 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-4), requested the respondents to regularize their services by treating them at par with the regularized employees in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP No.7105-06 of 2014 (Civil Appeal No.3209 of 2015). Notwithstanding this fact, the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 25.01.2019 declined to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization since they did not fulfill the prescribed educational/age criteria as well as on the ground of non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of any of the policies which were notified up to 01.10.2003 including the directions of the State Government issued vide memo No.12/105/2014-5K-1 dated 13.08.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the services of the similarly-situated employees have already been regularized but the petitioners have been left out for the reasons best known to the respondents. A list of such employees who had joined after the petitioners had joined the services, has also been attached as Annexure P10 to show that the respondents have discriminated against the petitioners who have to their credit more than 30 years of service till date.

4. It is urged that the action of the respondent in rejecting their claim for regularization vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) is most arbitrary and is in violation of the well settled proposition of law. The ground of rejection of petitioners’ claim for regularization is primarily due to non-fulfilling of educational qualification by the petitioners whereas the respondents have adopted pick and choose policy and have discriminatorily granted relaxation of educational qualification and age limit to other similarly situated daily wagers.

5. The further argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that th