Employment rights must consider the evolution of employment circumstances, not just initial appointment terms; regularization claims post-superannuation lack merit without available positions.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 17-02-2025

Heard Mr. Vijoy Nandan Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who superannuated from the post of Assembly Operator Technician, Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation, Patna (for brevity “Beltron”), on being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not regularizing his services, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to consider his case for regularization with effect from the date when the services of the juniors to the petitioner have been regularized with all consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Assembly Operator Technician on 21.07.1986 on daily wage basis. Subsequent thereto, the service of the petitioner was terminated on 06.11.1987, which order was put to question by raising an industrial dispute and accordingly, the matter was referred to Labour Court in Reference Case No. 10 of 1990. Pursuant to the award dated 12.08.1991, the petitioner was reinstated in service with full back wages along with other consequential benefits. It is the contention of the petitioner that in compliance of the award of the Labour Court as above-noted, the petitioner submitted his joining, however, he had been directed to submit his joining at BSML, Dhanbad, where he joined on 18.05.1992 and started working there.

4. The petitioner had also approached this Court on account of inaction of the respondent authorities in not considering his case for regularization, in C.W.J.C. No. 3527 of 1993 before the learned Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. Considering the claim of the petitioner, based upon parity and the scheme formulated by the Corporation for absorption of such employees, the writ petition came to be disposed off vide order dated 01.03.1994 with a direction to the respondent- Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioner and take final decision within a period of six months. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the Beltron has preferred review application being Civil Review No. 33 of 1994, however, it came to be disposed off with a direction to the Beltron that if the claim of the petitioner has not yet been considered, the same may be done within a period of three months. It is the contention of the petitioner that, notwithstanding, the order of learned Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, the claim of the petitioner did not get considered and thus he was again compelled to approach this Court in C.W.J.C. No.16391 of 2014. The afore-noted writ petition came to be disposed off with a direction to the Managing Director, Beltron, Bihar State to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service and take decision in accordance with law. The petitioner represented in pursuant to the order of this Court and finally the claim of the petitioner for regularization came to be turned down by the order of the Managing Director contained in Memo No.4046/19 dated 26.06.2019. This order is also questioned by filing an interlocutory application in the present writ petition.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is within limited bounds that the persons junior to the petitioner, who were also identically discharging their duties, their services have been regularized but discrimination has been caused to the petitioner and no positive order for regularization has been passed. Though, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2018 but yet it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case for regularization of the petitioner with effect from the date when juniors to the petitioner have been accorded regularization, inasmuch as the impugned order passed by the Managing Director, Beltron, Bihar, Patna, is per se illegal and perverse, having no consideration of the materials and the submissions advanced