HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-3815-2001.

2. The writ petition (CWP-3815-2001) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 01.01.2001 whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated by respondent No.4. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to frame a policy of absorption of employees working as Balsevikas as well as to grant them the same pay scale as has been given to some of their counterparts.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners were appointed as Balsevikas, with various District Councils for Child Welfare, on ad hoc basis for a period of 06 months for a consolidated salary. The appointment letter dated 11.04.1977 issued to petitioner No.1 is available at Annexure P-2. She further submitted that the State of Haryana introduced the Balwadi-cum Nutrition Programme (hereinafter ‘BNP’), which was executed through respondent- Haryana State Council for Child Welfare (HSCCW), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, although it was mostly funded by the Central Government.

4. It was further submitted that vide letter dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P-3) the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Women and Child Development intimated the decision to discontinue the BNP by 31.03.2001. In furtherance thereof, impugned letter dated 01.01.2001 (Annexure P-4) was issued, terminating the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 31.03.2001. Clause V of the letter dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P-3) provides that efforts be made to get Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) centres allotted in lieu of closure of BNP centres, however, no efforts were made towards it. As such, the State failed to discharge its duty to absorb surplus government employees in other departments or organisations. Further, the juniors of petitioner No.1, namely- Asha Rani and Jaya Rani were transferred from Balwadi to Creches even though neither of them were served any notice, and are still working at Bal Bhawan, Karnal and Creche at Madhuban, respectively.

5. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180, learned Senior counsel submitted that the decision to withdraw the BNP without formulating a policy for absorption of its staff is violative of the right to livelihood of the petitioners, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Further still, the BNP was guided by Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India i.e. to provide a conducive and healthy environment for development of children. As such, the State cannot abruptly abandon this directive principle of State policy, without making arrangements for the consequences thereof, as it defeats the promise of a Welfare State. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgments i.e. G. Govida Rajulu vs. The Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Ltd. and another AIR 1987 SC 1801, Haryana Tanneries Employees Union (Regd.), Jind, Haryana vs. State of Haryana and another in CWP-9469-1988, State of Punjab and others vs. Mehanga Ram and others 1989 (2) SLR 56 (P&H) and Ram Phal vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP-1040-1990 and submits that the petitioners deserve to be provided alternative jobs, as they have rendered services under the control of State Government for 14 to 24 years, respectively.

6. Per con