IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Employers must ensure parity among similarly situated employees regarding regularization, irrespective of prior court appeals.

ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

1. By way of present Petition, the Petitioners have sought the relief of regularization in service at par with the Private Respondents who are stated to be the juniors.

2. The case of the Petitioners is that the respondent/Municipal Corporation has framed a consolidated seniority list of Daily rated employees and in the said list, in Public Works Section, the names of Petitioners are at S.No.253, 113 and 249 whereas the names of Respondents No.4 and 5 are at S.No.260 and 261 despite which the respondents No.4 and 5 have been granted the benefit of regularization to the post of Time Keeper vide Order Annexure P-4 issued in the year 2022 whereas the Petitioners have been left out for such consideration.

3. The respondents have contested the said case of the Petitioners on the ground that the representation of the Petitioners has been turned down vide Order Annexure R-2 dated 19.01.2024 whereby it has been decided by the Corporation that the regularization shall be carried out only as per the seniority of the employees and since the sufficient number of vacant posts are not available, therefore, the Petitioners have not been regularised. It is further contended that the private respondents have been regularized only in compliance of Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.329/2015 and bunch of cases whereby this Court had directed the said private respondents to be given the benefit of permanent Time keeper as these persons had approached the Labour Court and the Labour Court at some very early point of time had directed their classification and since these Petitioners have never approached the Labour Court and there was no Order of classification in favour of these Petitioners therefore, these Petitioners have not been regularized at par with private respondents.

4. Upon hearing the rival contentions, it is seen that the only difference between the case of the Petitioners and that of the private respondents is that the private respondents had at some point of time, approached the Labour Court and got an Order of permanent classification whereas the Petitioners did not approach the Labour Court and there is no such Order in their favour.

5. However, in the reply, nothing has been placed on record that except the Petitioners having not approached the Labour Court, there is any other difference between the cases of the Petitioners and the private respondents who had approached the Labour Court and whether the contention of the Petitioners that they are senior to private respondents in daily rated service and performing the same nature of duties, is not correct.

6. It is settled in law that the model employer is bound to maintain parity in the matter of employment and merely because one junior approaches the Labour Court, then the seniors cannot be denied the same benefits, if they are at par.

7. In Kiran Vasudev Vs. Gwalior Development Authority and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 3200, it has been held as under:-

"11. Heaving heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment to the extent that it held the direction cannot be issued for the creation of a post including a supernumerary post is warranted. Nevertheless equally GDA as an authority and bound by the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution could not have permitted discrimination against one of its employees given that other employees-who were concededly juniors to the appellant : were regularized pursuant to the order of Labour Court. The award was complied with, without demur."

8. Further, in the case of " State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347, it has been held as under:- 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by e