Delhi High Court
Ramji Lal And Ors. vs N.I.H. & F.W. And Ors. on 26 April, 2002
Author: Dalveer Bhandari
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. The 22 petitioners have filed this petition before this Court with the prayer that they have been working for several years and even after completion of several years of satisfactory service they have not been regularized.
2. This court issued a show cause notice to the respondents on 30.5.1997. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is denied that they (respondents) did not heed to the request of the petitioners for regularisation of their services. It is also incorporated that the fact is that the process of regularisation had already been started by placing the proposal in Standing Finance Committee of the Institute held on 20.2.1996 which was already conveyed to the petitioners on 30.9.96. It is also mentioned that on 2.1.1997 this court directed the respondent-Institute that services of the Casual Labourers be regularised within two months from 2.1.1997 when the respondents' lawyer had informed the court that decision has already been taken by the respondents to regularise the services of 25 casual labourers (22 have approached this court and 3 of them did not approached).
3. By the order dated 21.2.1997, the services of 25 daily wagers who had been working for a long time were regularised by the respondents.
4. The short remaining grievance of the petitioners is that they have been denied consequential benefits and were not regularised from the dates of their respective appointment with the respondents. Annexure P-3 is the list of the petitioners which is indicative of their dates of appointment with the Institute. Correctness of this has not been disputed by the respondents. This includes all the petitioners before this court. The respondents could not point out any valid reason which impelled the respondents not to give consequential benefits of regularisation from the dates of their appointment.
5. Dr. Surat Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has placed reliance on the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Courttitled Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Associations & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court clearly held that:
" The period of continuous officiation by a government servant, after his appointment by following the rules applicable for substantive appointments, has to be taken into account for determining his seniority; and seniority cannot be determined on the sole test of confirmation, for, confirmation is one of the inglorious uncertainties of government service depending neither on efficiency of the incumbent nor on the availability of substantive vacancies."
6. In the instant case, the petitioners were validly appointed as daily wagers and continued in that position for several years and served the respondents to their entire satisfaction. After the orders of this court, their services were regularised but they were not given the benefit of service from the dates of their appointment.
7. The question of regularisation of daily wage employees and giving them the benefit of regularisation was considered in Halli Gowda & Others vs. Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C & Another . In this case the Supreme Court observed as under:-
."It is not disputed before us by counsel for the respondents that in case benefit of regularisation has been conferred on daily rated employees from the date of initial employment and such benefit has not been extended to the petitioners, the grievance grounded upon Art.14 of the Constitution would be valid. The matter to be examined, therefore, is with reference to factual position as to when the 19 persons in Annexure 'A' were initially employed and when they have been regularised as against the initial employment of each of the petitioners. This can be done only by reference to appropriate records. We direct that a senior officer of the Corporation shall be named by respondent No.1 to look into these allegations and at the time the question is examined by such officer the petitioners shall be given appropriate opportunity of being heard, if asked for through counsel also, and all relevant documents should be looked into to ascertain whether the claim of the petitioners that they have been discriminated against in the facts indicated in their writ petition particularly with reference to Annexure 'A' is correct; and in case it is found that the petitioners have not been given the benefit which has been given to the 19 daily rated Conductors specified in Annexure 'A' petitioners may be conferred the same benefit as has been extended to those19 persons unless the respondent is able to assign satisfactory and cogent reasons and states as to why petitioners are not entitled to the same benefit."
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed on record the "Scheme for Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization of Casual Workers" prepared by Department of Personnel & Training and adopted by the respondent-Institute. Even in this scheme it is not mentioned that the benefit should not be given from the date of appointment.
9. In view of the settled legal position, which has been crystalised in number of cases, the petitioners are entitled to get benefit of regularization from the dates of their appointment with the respondent-Institute. The respondents are accordingly directed to grant this benefit to the petitioners forthwith.
10. No further orders are necessary in this petition and this petition is accordingly disposed of.