Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Chet Ram And Others on 12 July, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.1214 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision : July 12, 2013
State of Haryana and others .....Appellants
versus
Chet Ram and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, 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)
This letter patent appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has issued a direction for regularization of services of the respondents in terms of the Government policy which was in force at the relevant time.
The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the private respondents who were illegally retrenched and have been reinstated 'with continuity of service' under the Awards passed by Labour Court and who were 'deemed to be in service at the relevant time', can be denied regularization of services when they fulfill the eligibility conditions, i.e., three years service on the cut off date i.e., 30.9.2003 as mentioned in the Government policy (Annexure P-4) and more so when their juniors were admittedly brought on regular establishment.
This Court in LPA No.1037 of 2012 (State of Haryana and others versus Ved Pal and others) where juniors were made Kumar Mohinder 2013.07.29 12:11 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh LPA No.1214 of 2013 (O&M) [2] regular denying the claim of seniors on the plea that the policy of regularization was no longer operative after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1, held as follows:-
".....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 Kumar Mohinder 2013.07.29 12:11 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh LPA No.1214 of 2013 (O&M) [3] 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 seek regularization of their services from the date such a benefit was granted to their juniors...."
For the reasons aforementioned, no interference with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is called for.
Dismissed.
Since we have decided the appeal on merits, no separate order is required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay of 264 days in filing the appeal.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 12, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.07.29 12:11
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh