Once Service Of Similar Situated Employee Is Regularised By Dept, Denying Same Benefit To Others Violates Article 14: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that not regularising the service of an employee despite giving the same benefit to other employees would be a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Justice Namit Kumar said, "Once services of the similarly situated persons have been regularized by the respondent department, there is no justification for denying the said benefit to the petitioner, as the same would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
The Court was hearing a plea to regularise the service of Rajesh Kumar who joined as 'Mali-cum-Chowkidar' in 1995 in the PWD Department. Kumar was terminated from service in 1997 and reinstated by the Labour Tribunal in 2001 with back wages. However, the award was challenged by the Department before the High Court and recovery of back wages was ordered to be stayed.
Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join duties in 2003 and finally, the said writ petition was allowed in part, whereby Single Bench held that 'since the petitioner has not worked from 01.04.1997 to 03.02.2004, therefore, he was not entitled to full back wages' and was awarded 25 % of the back wages.'
The Haryana Government in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, issued a Notification in 2003, regularizing the services of the ad-hoc/contract/daily wages employees, who had completed 03 years of service on 30.09.2003 even if there was a break of 6 months. The notification further added that in case such break is not attributable to the employee, the employees who have been engaged before 31.01.1996, shall be regularized provided they fulfill the other conditions.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that similarly situated employees were regularised and the petitioner was not given the same benefit in spite of fulfilling the eligibility criteria.
Answering the grievance the department stated that “since the petitioner had been taken back into service on 24.12.2003 and (writ petition), filed by the State of Haryana against the award dated 02.02.2001, is pending in the High Court, therefore, the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized”.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that Kumar has served the department for about 29 years and his case is squarely covered by the Government policy to regularise his service.
Reliance was placed on Ajmer Singh versus State of Haryana and others [2002(1) RSJ 479] to underscore that once an employee is reinstated in service with continuity, he is deemed to be on duty for all intents and purposes and the benefit accruing on the basis of such deemed reinstatement has to be granted as he if was actually on duty from the date when his services have been illegally terminated.
The Court also referred to Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India and others [2024 INSC 624], wherein the Supreme Court held that similarly placed employees cannot be discriminated against and directed regularization of workers, who served for 30 years.
In light of the above, the Court opined that Kumar cannot be discriminated against and allowed the directing "to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2003, as per Policy...with all consequential benefits and the same shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate with Ms. Neha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Title: Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 257