Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeewan Jyoti And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 October, 2013
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.21750 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 4.10.2013
Jeewan Jyoti and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
C.M.No.14448 of 2013 is allowed as prayed for. Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is permitted to be taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
The petitioners' grievance is limited. They were working on contractual basis after having been appointed through a proper selection process which was initiated in the year 2008 by inserting an advertisement. The policy of the government which is on record as Annexure P-3 enabled the respondents to regularise the services of an employee who had put in 2- 1/2 years of service. The petitioners' case for regularisation was considered in terms of this policy Annexure P-3 and their services were regularised vide order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P-4) with effect from 1.7.2011.
Having done so the respondents have now passed an order Annexure P-7 which indicates that the salary of the regularised Computer Singh Daljit Faculty as regular Computer Faculty be prepared only from the date such 2013.10.14 11:57 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.21750 of 2012 (O&M) -2- employee has received the order of regularisation and submits his joining report in the school as regular faculty. This would imply that the regular pay scale would be admissible to the petitioners upon their joining the faculty.
The respondents have filed their reply and have stated that in the year 2008 when the advertisement was inserted the petitioners applied in response thereto. They were required to take a written test in which the minimum benchmark for reserved category and general category was 20 and 35 marks respectively out of 100 marks. Only a few of the candidates were successful in obtaining the minimum benchmark. Since at that time there was an urgent requirement of teachers, it was decided to appoint even those candidates who had failed to obtain the minimum benchmark with the condition that they shall pass the said test with minimum bench mark within the stipulated time period. Later on, this condition was waived off in a meeting held on 27.9.2011. It is stated that the petitioners failed to obtain the minimum benchmark in their respective categories and the respondent No.2 then decided that their services would be regularised after receiving the minutes of the meeting which was approved on 6.10.2011 and thus their case for regularisation cannot be considered with effect from 1.7.2011.
This stand as reflected in the preliminary objections taken by respondent No.2 to the mind of this Court is totally ambiguous and vague. It does not even address the controversy raised and shows a complete lack of application of mind. Apart from this, no other explanation has been offered by respondent No.2.
On due consideration I find that there is no justification for making the regular pay scale admissible to the petitioners from a date later than the date with effect from which their services have been regularised. Singh Daljit 2013.10.14 11:57 I attest to the accuracy of this document C.W.P.No.21750 of 2012 (O&M) -3- The explanation given by respondent No.2 would have been relevant at the time of considering the case of the petitioners for regularisation, but having regularised their services they cannot fall back on any other pre-condition imposed upon the petitioners at the time of offering them employment and more particularly so when said pre-condition was also waived off as per the own showing of the respondents. Clearly, the stand of the respondents No.2 is absolutely incoherent and unsustainable and has forced the petitioners to come to this Court unnecessarily which has also resulted in wastage of time of the Court.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.25,000/-, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are held entitled to the regular pay scale with effect from 1.7.2011 which is the date on which such regularisation has been conferred upon them. The costs shall be recovered from the personal pay of the officer who has passed the impugned order. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
4.10.2013 (MAHESH GROVER)
dss JUDGE
Singh Daljit
2013.10.14 11:57
I attest to the accuracy
of this document