Point of Law : Doctrine of doctrine of res judicata - The doctrine of res judicata, as envisaged by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary State action of hand picking Employees for regularization of Services and granting them Salaries higher than the Petitioners, despite the Petitioners having performed similar works as the aforementioned Employees, thereby violating the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work.

2.(i) The Petitioners’ case is that the Services of select Employees similarly situated with them were illegally and selectively regularized in the months of March, 2014 and September, 2014, whereas the Services of the Petitioners were regularized only in June, 2016, along with that of Employees junior to them. That, they have been receiving their Salaries in the new Pay Scale after their regularization from June, 2016 but not the Arrears of Salary due to them since September, 2014, which Employees whose Services were regularized in September, 2014 have been granted.

(ii) To comprehend the matter in its entirety, it is essential to retrace the averments in the Writ Petition. The Petitioners’ case is that they were initially employed by the Government of Sikkim on Muster Roll/Work Charge Basis and after having worked in various capacities, acquired sufficient experience in their respective Posts. They had a legitimate expectation that the State-Respondents would regularize their Services in due course of time. This was in view of the Notification No.264/GEN/DOP, dated 12.02.2014, (Annexure-P2), according to which regularization was to be given to Employees who had completed fifteen years or more of Service on 31.03.2013. However, this was not to be, although the Services of many Temporary Employees similarly situated and in some cases, junior to the Petitioners, were arbitrarily regularized in the months of March, 2014 and September, 2014 vide four different Office Orders viz. (i) Office Order bearing No.2215/Adm, dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure-P4); (ii) Office Order bearing No.96/Adm, dated 20.09.2014 (Annexure-P5); (iii) Office Order bearing No.200/Adm, dated 20.09.2014 (Annexure-P6); and (iv) Office Order bearing No.1009/Adm, dated 20.09.2014 (AnnexureP7). Being thus aggrieved, the Petitioners were before this High Court in W.P.(C) No.05 of 2016 (Purna Lall Subba and Others vs. State of Sikkim and Others). During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the State-Respondents regularized their Services from 30.06.2016.

3.(i) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners advanced the contention that this High Court, vide its Order, dated 01.07.2016, disposed of the said Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to take up the matter for their Incidental Reliefs. That, the names of the Petitioners although included in the List of Employees whose Services were to be regularized as per the Notification, dated 12.02.2014 supra, were left out without assigning any reason.

(ii) It was next urged that eleven digit Contributory Provident Fund (for short, “CPF”) numbers meant only for regular Government Employees, were issued to the Petitioners from the month of September, 2014, itself when Services of the other Employees were regularized thus recognizing the rights of the Petitioners also to obtain the same Salary as that of the regularized Employees. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled to Arrears of Salary from September, 2014 to 30.06.2016. That, although their period of Probation after regularization in June, 2016 was completed in June, 2017, they were not paid the said Arrears. That, the State action is in violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) Learned Senior Counsel further urged that Prayer “A.” of the Writ Petition viz., “A writ or order or direction or declaration that the services of the Petitioners be treated under regular establishment with retrospective effect from September, 2014, instead of since 30.06.2016.” is not being pressed by the Petitioners. That, the reliefs being sought for by the Petitioners and which may be gr