Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Ved Pal And Others on 25 July, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.1037 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : July 25, 2012
State of Haryana and others .....Appellants
versus
Ved Pal and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.R.S.Kundu, Additional AG, Haryana, for the appellants.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.2754 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 77 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
The CM stands disposed of.
L.P.A.No.1037 of 2012 (O&M) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.2.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.1169 of 2009 wherein directions have been issued to the appellant-State to regularize the services of private respondents from the date their juniors were made regular and on the same terms and conditions.
The facts are not in dispute. The private respondents have been working as daily wagers in the Forest Department, Haryana, for more than 10 years or so. Some of them approached this Court including in Civil Writ Petition No.6341 of 2005 (Bijender and others versus State of Haryana and others) seeking regularization of their services in accordance with the LPA No.1037 of 2012 (O&M) [2] Government Policy. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.11.2005 with a direction to the authorities to consider their claim as per the Government Policy. On consideration, the Forest Department found as a matter of fact that the claim of the writ-petitioners was covered under the Government Policy, hence recommendations were made to regularize their services.
It may be mentioned here at this stage that juniors to the private respondents also approached this Court seeking similar relief and their writ petitions were also disposed of with somewhat similar directions.
There is no denial to the fact that claim of the juniors was considered first and they were made regular. However, the recommendations made by the Divisional Forest Officer in favour of private respondents for regularization of their services were not accepted by the Head Office on the plea that meanwhile the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC-1 had annulled the Government Policies leaving no right to seek regularization.
The same argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge which has been turned down while observing that the private respondents have been subjected to discrimination.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the private respondents have sought regularization of their services in terms of the Government Policy or on the plea of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution?
Since it stands admitted on record that juniors to the private respondents were made regular and no effort to de-regularize their services was made even after noticing the fact that seniors have been over-looked and ignored without any reasonable classification, in our considered view, the private respondents have made out a case of hostile discrimination within the ambit of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. It would necessarily mean that even if the Government Policy is not in existence and deemed to have been annulled, the private respondents shall be entitled to LPA No.1037 of 2012 (O&M) [3] seek regularization of their services from the date such a benefit was granted to their juniors.
No interference with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is called for.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 25, 2012 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE