Back
Upholds Regularization Rights For Employees Based On The
The has dismissed an filed by the , reaffirming that the government cannot discriminate against similarly situated employees regarding the . The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha, rejected the state's challenge to a single-judge order that directed the regularization of a college employee who had served for over four decades.
A Long Road to Employment Security
The respondent, Ugrasen Jha, was initially appointed as a Counter Clerk on a temporary basis in at . Despite his prolonged service and recommendations for regularization as early as , he remained in an ad-hoc capacity for years. When his peers who were appointed under identical circumstances were granted regularization following court interventions, Jha filed a seeking similar treatment. The single judge allowed his petition, holding that he could not be singled out while others in the same staffing pattern were absorbed.
Arguments from the State and the Employee
The appellant, the , argued that the petitioner's appointment was void ab initio because it was made on an unsanctioned post by an incompetent authority without open competitive selection. They contended that such an approach violated the principles set out in the ’s landmark decision and the local Full Bench ruling in .
Conversely, the respondent argued that the applies. He pointed out that his name was included in the same list of employees under the college's staffing pattern as those already regularized by the high court in previous rulings.
Judicial Reasoning and the
The High Court noted that while illegal appointments cannot be regularized, this case presented a distinct factual context. The court emphasized that the respondent was not seeking regularization based solely on tenure, but on the grounds of "."
"The
also assumes significance in the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble
in
has held that where relief has been granted to one set of employees and other employees are identically situated, the State is ordinarily bound to extend the same benefit unless it is able to establish a valid distinguishing feature,"
the judgment observed.
Key Observations
The judgment clarifies that the state failed to provide sufficient grounds to treat this employee differently from his peers:
-
"The learned Single Judge has not directed regularization solely on the basis of long continuance in service. The impugned judgment proceeds on the finding that respondent no. 1 forms part of the same staffing pattern."
-
"Once similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of regularization pursuant to judicial orders which have attained finality and have been implemented by the appellant, respondent no. 1 cannot be denied the same benefit in the absence of any ."
-
"To hold otherwise would amount to permitting unequal treatment amongst equals, which is impermissible in law."
Final Order
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court directed the state to implement the consequential orders and provide the necessary financial benefits to the respondent. This decision reinforces the protection of , ensuring that state instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily pick and choose favorites when regularizing staff under established service policies.
