Long-serving contractual employees performing regular duties entitled to regularization consideration on parity with similarly situated juniors, per equality under Articles 14/16.

ORDER

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Issuance of appropriate orders or directions for quashing impugned order dated 25.05.2017, (Annexure A-8) whereby, representation filed by the applicant for regularization has been rejected by passing speaking order.

2. Issue appropriate orders or directions directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant as MLD (Motor Lorry Driver) against the available vacant posts of MLD with consequential benefits.

3. Issue appropriate orders or directions directing the respondents to decide the case of the applicant, in the light of observation made by the 5 2 (0.A.No0.060/910/2017) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled as "Sarup Singh versus Union of India and others" whereby services of sarup singh has been regularized by the respondent department.

4. Issue appropriate orders or directions directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant as Motor Lorry Driver with effect from the date services of sarup singh has been regularized with all consequential benefits.

5. Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows. The applicant was initially engaged by the respondent Central Public Works Department (CPWD), in June 2003 as Motor Lorry Driver (MLD) on hand receipt basis, and was deployed on government vehicles under the administrative control of the respondents. It is averred that from the starting of engagement, the applicant continuously discharged duties identical to those performed by regular Motor Lorry Drivers. Subsequently, in the year 2007 a formal work order was issued engaging the applicant as Motor Lorry Driver w.e.f. 01.08.2007 to 31.05.2008, initially on daily wage basis at the rate of $87.93 per day with overtime allowance. Thereafter, the applicant continued to be engaged on contract basis, without any break in service, and has rendered continuous service as Motor Lorry Driver for more than 15 years under the respondent department.

3. During the course of service, the applicant was issued an identity card by the respondent department, reflecting his deployment within CPWD. It is averred that throughout this period, the applicant performed duties of a Motor Lorry Driver under direct supervision and control of departmental officers. Aggrieved by denial of wages at par with regular Motor Lorry Drivers, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 060/230/2015. The said OA was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order. In compliance, the respondents issued speaking order dated 06.05.2015 and started paying the 5 3 (0.A.No0.060/910/2017) applicant the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular MLDs, restricting arrears only from 18.03.2015 i.e. the date of judgment, despite departmental instructions to calculate arrears in accordance with Office Memorandum dated 21.10.1990.

4. The applicant contends that similarly situated employees, namely Dharampal, Vijay Singh and Sarup Singh, were granted arrears from their respective dates of appointment, whereas the applicant was discriminated against without any justification. It is averred that one Sarup Si