JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

Prayer:

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of impugned order 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) and direct the respondents to restore the order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) by regularizing the petitioner’s services w.e.f. 01.03.1997 with all consequential benefits.

Factual Matrix :

2. The petitioner was engaged as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways during the strike period of December 1993. He joined duties on 07.12.1993 at Jind Depot and worked up to 20.12.1993. After the strike ended, his services were terminated on 21.12.1993.

3. Several similarly situated persons, who were engaged during the same strike period and whose services were also terminated, made representations to the authorities and even certain employees approached this Court, leading to directions for consideration of their claims. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was re- appointed and joined service on 01.06.2004 and has continued in service since then.

4. The services of such re-appointed employees were regularized by the department from different dates. In the case of the petitioner, his services were initially regularized from 01.07.2008. However, the services of several similarly situated employees were regularized from earlier dates, including 01.01.1996 and 01.03.1997.

5. On the petitioner’s representation claiming parity with similarly situated employees, respondent no. 3 passed an order dated 17.05.2016(Annexure P-1) regularizing the petitioner’s services retrospectively from 01.03.1997.

6. Subsequently, respondent no. 3 issued another order dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) withdrawing the earlier order dated 17.05.2016. The withdrawal order did not grant any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner submits that orders regularizing the services of other similarly situated employees from 01.03.1997 or 01.01.1996 continue to remain in force and have not been withdrawn. The petitioner’s request for restoration of the order dated 17.05.2016 was not accepted by the respondents.

8. Aggrieved by the withdrawal of the regularization benefit the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) withdrawing the benefit of regularization is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as similarly situated employees appointed during the same strike period have been regularized from 01.03.1997 or even earlier, and their orders continue to remain intact.

10. It is contended that the petitioner stands on the same footing as other conductors appointed during the December 1993 strike, whose services were terminated and later re-appointed, and who have been granted regularization from earlier dates i,e 01.01.1996. Denial of the same benefit to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination. The order dated 17.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) regularizing the petitioner’s services from 01.03.1997 created a vested right in favour of the petitioner.

11. The learned counsel submits that before passing the impugned order dated 27.05.2016, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The order, therefore, suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

On behalf of the respondents:

12. The learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was engaged purely as a stop-gap arrangement during the strike period in December 1993 and his services were validly terminated on 20.12.1993 after the strike ended. Thereafter, the petitioner was not in service and had no subsisting right or continuity of service till his fresh appointment on contractual basis on 01.06.2004. Consequently, the petitioner’s service tenure can only be counted from