Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
RAGHURAJ BAGHEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS/2994/2022
Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate For State:- Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate
Discrimination in employment violates Articles 14, 16, and 19 of the Constitution, necessitating equal treatment for similarly situated individuals.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 19 - Discrimination in employment - Petitioners challenged the order of the Collector, claiming unequal treatment compared to regular employees despite similar qualifications and selection process - Court found that petitioners were appointed as contingency employees and not regular employees due to lack of available posts - Court directed authorities to consider creating posts for regularization of petitioners. (Paras 3, 4, 10, 11)
(B) Equal Treatment - The principle of equal treatment in employment mandates that individuals in similar circumstances should not be treated differently without reasonable justification. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as contingency employees after being selected from a waiting list for Grade-IV posts, while 60 others were appointed as regular employees. They claimed discrimination in pay and benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the authorities to consider creating posts for the petitioners and to ensure they are not deprived of their rights.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were discriminated against in employment and whether they should be granted regular employee status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioners, despite being appointed from a waiting list, deserved fair treatment and consideration for regularization.
Result: Writ petitions disposed off with directions to the authorities.
Order On Board
27.01.2025
1. The bunch of these writ petitions is being disposed off by this common order as the issue involved in all the writ petitions are identical and similar and this order will adjudicate the entire bunch of the writ petitions.
2. The petitioners, by ways of their individual petitions, are challenging the order No.1346 dated 03.11.2024 passed by the Collector, District, Sukma whereby the appointment of the petitioners have been challenged vide order No.1374 dated 31.08.2017 leading to discrimination in respect of the order No.1388 dated 31.08.2017. The petitioners in all the writ petitions have sought the following reliefs which are near-about identical in all the writ petitions:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders for quashing the impugned order dated 03.11.2021 (Annexure P/13) passed by the Collector District Sukma, and declare the discrimination on the part of the respondents.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders for equal treatment of petitioner like Grade-IV regular employees in initial orders issued in the year 2013 and orders dated 31.08.2017 and seniority be reckoned from the date of appointment with all consequential benefits.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), and imposed the cost upon respondents, which may deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. The case as projected by all the writ petitioners is like that the Collector, District Sukma has issued an advertisement dated 01.06.2012 for recruitment for the vacant posts of Grade-IV employees of different offices within the District Sukma as per the guidelines of the State Government in respect of pay-scale, Dearness Allowances and other applicable remuneration in the prescribed form. According to the said advertisement, there were total 60 vacant posts of Grade-IV employees (Peons) and on the said basis, several persons have applied for the post of peon along with the present writ petitioners. Since, there were only 60 vacant posts available, as such, a select list was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by the concerned aspirants. Accordingly, 60 persons were given regular appointment on the post of Peon on the 60 vacant posts, however, there were other candidates also who had been selected but since, vacant posts were not available, they were on waiting list and later on, they were considered and were appointed as contingency paid employee (contingency post of Peon). The present petitioners are those persons who were appointed on the contingency post in excess of 60 vacant posts of peon. The persons who were selected and appointed on the 60 vacant posts of Peon were being given benefit of regular employee, but, so far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are not being given benefits of regular employee as they are not being considered as regular employee, whereas, they are being considered as contingency paid employee.
4. The grievance of the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions are that when they were selected on the basis of same advertisement issued by the Collector, District Sukma dated 01.08.2012 and they were fulfilling the requisite qualification to be recruited on the post of Peon, then, there may not be any discrimination in giving status to them. The 60 persons were being given benefit of regular employee and are getting more benefits though the mode of selection and recruitment process is one and same ; they are on same footing at par with the 60 persons who were being given benefit of regular employee. The petitioners are being treated differently than that of 60 Peons who were recruited on regular post, as such, the petitioners are being discriminated which is in violation of Articles 14,16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are also requ
