Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kewal Krishan And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 17 August, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA Nos. 3114, 3941 and 4123 of 2019
Reserved on: August 10, 2023
Decided on: August 17, 2023
.
________________________________________________________
1. CWPOA No. 3114 of 2019
Dr. Kewal Krishan and others ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents
2. CWPOA No. 3941 of 2019
Rajneesh Chauhan and others ...........Petitioners
Versus
of
Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and another
....Respondents
3. CWPOA No. 4123 of 2019
rt
Manish Saklani and others
...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
CWPOA No. 3114 of 2029
For the Petitioners : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General
with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal
Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma,
Additional Advocates General & Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General, for respondent No.1.
CWPOA Nos. 3941 and 4123 of 2019
For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS
2
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for
respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge:
Since in all the above captioned cases, issue sought to be decided is identical and petitioners have prayed for similar relief, same were heard together and are now being decided by this common of judgment.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with decision of the service committee (Annexure R-13), annexed with affidavit filed on behalf of rt respondent No.2, in September 2012 (available at page 152 of CWP No. 11551 of 2011) whereby service committee did not agree to the proposal given in memorandum and ordered that Government policy of regularization of Government employee would be followed in letter and spirit, petitioners have approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main relief "(i) the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date from which regularization has been given by the respondents to employees of 13 categories of contract employees as mentioned in Circular No. 13 dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P 13) issued on the basis of decision of Board of Directors of respondent No.1;
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 3(ii) after granting benefit of reguarlization as prayed for in prayer (i) the pay of the petitioners may be re-fixed at .
appropriate stage after granting them due increments;
(iii) the respondents may be directed to pay difference of salary arrears payable to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.":
3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from record are that of Himachal Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter, HPPCL) a Government company, the then HPSEBL, created under Electricity rt Supply Act, 1948 had created two subsidiary Government companies by the name Pabber Valley Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter, 'PVPCL') and Kinner Kailash Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter, 'KKPCL'). A few HPSEB circles alongwith staff on 'as is where is' basis were transferred to aforesaid two newly formed corporation. In the year 2007, vide order dated 7.9.2007, erstwhile HPSEB decided to merge KKPCL and PVPCL with HPPCL, as a result of which, services of employees, who were working in KKPCL and PVPCL came to be placed at the disposal of HPPCL on secondment basis. Pursuant to aforesaid merger, vide office order No. 14, dated 17.4.2008, 463 posts of various categories, 276 sanctioned posts of KKPCL and 187 sanctioned posts of PVPCL alongwith existing staff were transferred to HPPCL with effect from 1.4.2008 on 'as is where is' basis /secondment ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 4 basis by discontinuing equal number of posts from the strength of the then HPSEB with effect from 1.4.2008.
.
4. The organisational structure and manpower plan was referred to the Government for approval (Annexure P-1). Vide communication dated 24.3.2008, Annexure P-3, Principal Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh conveyed approval of the Government. Aforesaid decision taken by Government was reiterated of vide communication dated 12.6.2008, Annexure P-4, wherein it came to be ordered that, "Government has approved organisational structure rt and manpower plan of HPPCL subject to the conditions that the HPPCL will take all staff from HPSEB except for those posts/personnel, which the HPSEB is not able to provide.
5. After taking necessary approval from the Council of Ministers of Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 11.6.2008, HPPCL issued advertisement No. 1/2008, thereby calling for applications for 13 categories including 10 posts of Junior Officer (F&A), for filling up on contract basis (Annexure P-5). Besides above, vide advertisement No. 4/2008, HPPCL advertised 10 posts of Computer Operators (Annexure P-6). Vide advertisement No. 8/2008 (Annexure P-7), HPPCL advertised 1 post of Assistant Public Relation Officer, 10 posts of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and 1 post of Assistant Engineer (Environment).. As per advertisements detailed herein above, appointments against posts in question were to be made on contract ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 5 basis. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisements, petitioners herein applied for the post of Junior Officer (F&A) and Junior Officer (R&R). After .
undergoing selection process as detailed in the advertisement, petitioners were selected against the posts applied for by them on various dates as detailed in the petitions. For the comparison/perusal, copies of appointment letters of 10 Junior Officer (F&A) in CWP No. 11591 of 2012 (Annexure P-9) and appointment letters issued to of various categories of Computer Operator, Assistant Personnel Officer, Accounts/Finance Officer, Junior Engineer (Civil), Assistant Manger rt (Law), Assistant Engineer (Electrical), Assistant Public Relation Officer and Assistant Engineer (IT), issued pursuant to advertisements Nos.
1/2008, 4/2008 and 8/2008, have been placed on record as Annexures P-10/1 to P-10/9.
6. HPPCL, with a view to enhance the efficiency of employees working on contract basis and to remove the uncertainty and insecurity of job amongst them, decided to regularize the services of some of categories of employees working in the HPPCL. Matter regarding regularization of contractual employees was placed before the Board of Directors in its 14th meeting vide item No. 14.11 (Annexure P-11). In the aforesaid memorandum for consideration, proposal was sent for regularization of 17 categories of employees including those of Junior Officer (F&A) and Computer Operators. Board of Directors on 20.1.2009, in its 14th meeting (Annexure P-12), decided to regularize ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 6 only 97 persons of 14 categories whereas, Junior Officer (F&A), Junior Officer (R&R) and Computer Operators were left out without any .
reasonable basis or classification or object sought to be achieved.
Apart from above, Board of Directors also decided to regularize 5 Assistant Officer (R&R), whereas, factually there was no appointment to the post of Assistant Officer (R&R), on contractual basis, who could be regularized.
of
7. Pursuant to aforesaid decision HPPCL issued Circular No. 13, dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P-13), thereby regularizing services of rt above referred 13 categories and the 14th category as approved was of Assistant Officer (R&R), but since no person was appointed on contract basis on said post, there was no occasion for regularization of incumbents of said post.
8. In 16th meeting of Board of Directors, vide Item No.16.10, HPPCL, considered the case of Stenographers on the considerations of uncertainties and insecurity of job amongst them. Final decision was taken in 17th meeting of Board of Directors to regularize their services vide item No. 17.10 (Annexure P-15). Vide circular No. 19, dated 26.6.2009, (Annexure P-16), stenographers working on contract were also regularized but category of petitioners i.e. Junior Officer (F&A), Junior Officer (R&R) were again ignored, whereas they were also working on same considerations and there was insecurity of job amongst them also.
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 79. Vide Circular No. 28, dated 14.9.2009, (Annexure P-17), respondent Corporation decided to recruit 3 Assistant Personnel .
Officer internally on contract basis, whose services were subsequently regularized alongwith Accounts/Finance Officer, Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Junior Officer (Geo), Steno Typist, Assistant Manager (Law), Junior Engineer (Civil) and Assistant Engineer (Electrical) (Annexures P-18/1 to P-18/8).Apart from above, Executive Director of (Personnel) offered one post of Junior Officer (P&A) to one Amit Sharma, without said post having been advertised or notified, vide rt appointment letter dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-19) and subsequently, pay of said Amit Sharma, Junior Officer (P&A) was re-fixed on account of revision of pay scale from Rs.6750-11-50 to Rs.10900-34800+4550 as grade pay. In the case of said person, post of Junior Officer (P& A) came to be filled up on regular basis by the respondents, without taking incumbent on contract basis and then regularizing said post, as was done in case of the other categories.
10. In January, 2010, HPPCL issued an advertisement for filling up on regular basis, 4 posts of Junior Officer (IT) and subsequently 4 Junior Officer (IT) were appointed on regular basis on 6.1.2011 (Annexure P-21). Since other categories of employees, who were initially appointed on contract basis were regularized and despite petitioners being fully eligible, they were ignored rather were given hostile and discriminatory treatment by giving further appointment on ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 8 contract basis, they made a representation to respondent Corporation on 22.2.2020 (Annexure P-24) praying therein to regularize them on .
the same lines as other categories of employees were regularized.
Pursuant to said representation made by petitioner's category matter regarding regularization of category of petitioners was sent to Service Committee consisting of Managing Director, Principal Secretary (Finance) and Principal Secretary (Multi Purpose Project and Power), of which, in its meeting held on 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-25) decided not to regularize the petitioners and keep them contract basis.
11. rt Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, petitioners represented to the Chief Secretary, who was Chairperson of respondent Corporation, for their regularization. Though matter regarding regularization of category of petitioners was again considered on 15.10.2010 (Annexure P-27), by the Service Committee but the said Committee did not agree with the same and ordered to place the matter before Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation. In its 31st Board of Directors meeting held on 16.8.2011, vide item No. 31.16 (Annexure P-30), the Board of Directors wanted to know the appropriate utilization of proposed employees and asked for the detailed presentation of the work profile of each employee.
12. In 32nd meeting of Board of Directors held on 5.11.2011 (Annexure P-13), it came to be decided that the Government. policy of regularization should be followed by the Corporation and matter was ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 9 directed to be placed before the Service Committee to find out grounds for variation from Government policy but since no decision ever came .
to be taken by the Service Committee, petitioners herein were compelled to approach this Court, praying therein for the reliefs, which are similar in all the petitions, and have been reproduced above from CWPOA No. 4123 of 2009.
13. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, of respondent-Corporation filed detailed replies in all the petitions, wherein facts as discussed herein above are not disputed, rather stand admitted.
14. rt Reliefs claimed in the petitions came to be opposed on behalf of the respondent Corporation on the ground that all the categories appointed on contract basis vide orders as detailed herein above, do no form a homogenous class merely on the basis that the posts are advertised through a common advertisement, rather, same being different categories, rightly came to be treated differently. While denying allegations of hostile treatment and discrimination, respondent Corporation stated that no person from the category to which petitioners belongs has been regularized so far, as such allegations of discrimination against replying respondent are without any basis.
Lastly, but importantly, replying respondent has stated in the reply that Board of Directors in its 32nd meeting held on 5.11.2011 had directed ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 10 the matter to be placed before Service Committee of HPPCL but decision is yet to be taken.
.
15. Having taken note of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, this court passed a detailed order on 30.8.2012 which is reproduced herein below:
"petitioners have prayed inter alia fr the following relief: -
"(i) the respondents may be directed to regularize the services of of the petitioners from the date from which regularization has been given by the respondents to employees of 13 categories of contract employees as mentioned in Circular No. 13 dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure P 13) issued on the basis of decision of rt Board of Directors of respondent No.1.
2. Prima facie, it appears that petitioners' grievance is genuine inasmuch as they stand discriminated against similarly situated persons who were engaged on contractual basis by the respondents-Corporation. I am told tthat meeting of Service Committee of the respondents-Corporation is to take place on 5th September, 2012. Before the petition is adjudicated on merits, I am of the considered view that it would be only appropriate and desirable that respondents themselves rectify the error/take necessary actions which ought to have been taken, while passing orders with respect to 13 categories of employees, decision with regard to which was taken in the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.1, held on 20.1.2009.
3. Noticeably, from the respondents' own admission, as also the material placed before this Court, it is evident that respondents themselves had prepared an agenda note and recommended that employees of all 17 categories, who were ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 11 engaged on contract basis by the respondents-Corporation, be regularized. Significantly, the categories to which the present petitioners belong to, were actually included in the said list. The .
Board of Directors, without assigning any reason, considered regularizing services of contractual employees, but only with regard to 13 categories. No reason stands assigned for excluding the remaining four categories, to which the present petitioners also belong.
4. In fact, Board of Directors itself took into account the of plight of the contractual employees while regularizing services of similarly situated employees with respect to 13 categories. The relevant extract of meeting of the Board of Directors is rt reproduced herein below:
"The issue of regularization of all categories of contractual employees was discussed. The Managing Director. Informed that I view of insecurity among the contract employees, efficiency and effectiveness in day to day working may not contribute to the entire satisfaction of the organization and advocated for their regularization after completing one year of their contract period. He informed that some newly recruited persons have resigned only because they felt that they are not regular employees. All pros and cons of the issue were discussed in details. Thereafter, the Board approved the proposal to regularize the services of the Assistant Engineer (Civil) 25 Nos. Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) 10 Nos. Asstt. Engineers (Mech.) 10 Nos. Asstt. Engineer (Environment) 5 Nos. Assistant Finance Officer 10 Nos. Assistant Personnel Officer 10 Nos., Assistant Manager (Law) 1 No., Assistant Public Relation Officer 1 No., Junior Engineer (Electrical), 3 Nos., Junior Engineer(Civil) ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 12 12 Nos. and Junior Officer (Geology) 2 Nos. i.e. total 97 numbers (Ninety Seven) in the first instance."
5. Respondents were alive and sensitive to the insecurity .
suffered by the contractual employees. They were also aware of the plight and the hardships which were suffered by them. Consequential effect thereof, on the respondents' organization was also considered by the Board at the relevant time.
6. Prima facie, I am of the view that the present petitioners are similarly situated and the reasoning(s) accepted qua other of contractual employees, with respect to 13 categories would not only apply to the present petitioners but all employees of the left out categories.
7. rt As such, respondent No.2 is directed to place the matter before the Service Committee of respondent No.1-Organization for a favourable consideration. The ultimate decision so taken by respondent No.1 shall be placed on record within a period of three weeks from today.
List on 8.10.2012."
16. In the aforesaid order, court after having examined matter at length, arrived at a conclusion that the categories of the petitioners herein are similarly situate to the 13 categories, incumbents of which were regularized and the consideration for regularizing services of contractual employees of 14 other categories would also apply to the left out categories. This court vide aforesaid order directed HPPCL to place the matter before Service Committee of respondent organization for a favorable consideration.
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 1317. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court, matter came to be placed before Service Committee but again the Service Committee .
vide decision (Annexure R/B of CWPOA No.3941 of 2019) rejected the proposal given in memorandum and advised that policy of regularisation of the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularization of contractual employees should be followed in letter and spirit. Thereafter, petitioners also filed a supplementary affidavit in of CWPOA No. 3941 of 2019, praying therein to quash and set aside decision of the Service Committee.
18. rt Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate representing the petitioners in CWPOA Nos.
4123 of 2019 and 3941 of 2019 and Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate representing petitioners in CWPOA No. 3114 of 2019, vehemently argued that decision of Service Committee dated 5.9.2012 (Annexure R/B of CWPOA No. 3941 of 2019) is totally arbitrary and discriminatory and as such, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Initially in the respondent-Corporation, 17 category of employees were recruited on contract basis but for no plausible reason regularization of only 14 categories was ordered whereas, Service Committee left out three categories arbitrarily. They submitted that policy of Regularisation of State of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure RC of CWPOA No. 3941 of 2019) filed with affidavit of respondent No.2 was very much in existence at the time of regularization of other categories, as such, ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 14 when a decision was taken to regularize contractual employees, such policy had to be applied alike to all the persons working on contractual .
basis. He submitted that out of 17 categories of employees, 3 categories were left out of being regularized without any basis for distinguishing them.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are seeking regularization by citing precedent of other of categories and their case for regularization had to be considered at par with 13 other categories. If the policy of regularisation of State of rt Himachal Pradesh did not deter respondent from regularizing employees of 14 categories out of 17, same is not a fair justification for the respondent Corporation to deny benefit of regularisation to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are also similarly situate persons like the employees of other categories but they have been subjected to hostile treatment and discrimination in the matter of regualrisation, because respondent Corporation has made an impermissible classification by grouping 14 categories for granting benefit of regularization and leaving out categories of the petitioners without any reasonable basis for making such classification. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned classification does not have any reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and the petitioner are liable to be regularized at par with the other categories.
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 1520. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation, supported the impugned decision. He submitted that the .
Service Committee of the respondent after having discussions on the issue had not agreed for regularisation in deviation of notified policy of regularisation of State of Himachal Pradesh for contractual employees.
He submitted that members of Service Committee were of opinion that previous one time deviation from State Policy for regularization of of contract employees cannot be permitted to become a precedence for seeking regularization in future in all other cases.
21. rt Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that there is no dispute that initially, incumbents of all the 17 categories were appointed on contract basis. In the cases of all the categories as detailed in advertisement Nos. 1/2008, 4/2008 and 8/2008 initially appointments were given on contract basis. It is also not in dispute that State of Himachal Pradesh, while approving organisational structure and manpower plan of HPPCL communicated to Principal Secretary on 24.3.2008, (Annexure P-3, dated 24.3.2008), that all the recruitment is to be made from HPSEB and HPSEB is authorized to alter organization structure, as and when required, without changing total number of posts at each level. Vide Annexure P-4, dated 8.12.2006, Government while approving organisational structure and manpower plan of HPPCL stipulated that HPPCL will take all staff from HPSEBL ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 16 except for those persons/ posts which are not available with HPPCL and HPSEB is not able to provide. It is also not in dispute that HPPCL .
after having felt necessity to remove uncertainties and insecurity of job amongst employees appointed on contact basis prepared memorandum for consideration of the Board of Directors for regularisation of 17 categories, which included categories of Junior Officer (F&A) and Junior Officer (R&R) and Computer Operators of (Annexure P-11). Interestingly, Board of Directors in its 14th meeting decided to regularize only 97 persons of 14 categories leaving out the rt categories of Junior Officer (F&A) Junior Officer (R&R) and Computer Operators, without any reasonable basis or classification or object sought to be achieved. Besides regularizing employees belonging to 14 categories, respondent Corporation also regularized, Assistant Officer (R&R), though such posts were never filled on contract basis. Category of stenographers was also considered for regularisation on the considerations of uncertainties and insecurity of job amongst them and a positive decision was taken in 17th meeting of Board of Directors in this regard.
22. Every time, categories of the petitioners i.e. Junior Officer (F&A) and Junior Officer (R&R) were ignored despite the fact that they were also working on same condition and there was also uncertainty of job in their cases. Record clearly reveals that respondent Corporation ignoring category of petitioners, kept on regularizing various posts i.e. ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 17 Assistant Public Relation Officer, Assistant Engineer (Civil), Junior Officer Stenography, Assistant Manager (Law), Junior Engineer (Civil) .
and Assistant Engineer (Electrical) etc. Some of the persons who were not given appointment on contract basis were offered regular appointments. Other categories initially appointed on contract basis, were regularized yet categories of the petitioners were given hostile and discriminatory treatment by giving them further contractual of appointment even after completion of one year of probation.
23. If reply of the respondent is perused in its entirety, there is no rt plausible explanation for not offering similar treatment to the category of petitioners rather, reply itself suggests that the respondent Corporation having realized discrimination meted to the petitioners category, repeatedly sent the matter to the Service Committee but every time, Service Committee without any justifiable reason rejected the case of the petitioners for regularization.
24. In its 31st Board of Directors meeting held on 16.8.2011, vide item No. 31.16 (Annexure P-30), the Board of Directors wanted to know the appropriate utilization of proposed employees and asked for the detailed presentation of the work profile of each employee. In 32nd meeting of Board of Directors, held on 5.11.2011, it came to be decided that the Government policy of Regularization should be followed by respondent and matter was placed before Board of Directors to find grounds for variation from Government policy but since ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 18 no decision ever came to be taken by the Service Committee , as such, petitioners were compelled to approach this court in the instant .
proceedings.
25. This court, having taken note of aforesaid unrealistic discriminatory approach, of respondents, passed detailed order on 30.8.2012. This court, having taken note of admission of the respondent that it had itself prepared an agenda note with regard to of regularisation of employees of all the 17 categories, arrived at a conclusion that petitioners are similarly situate persons and reasoning, rt which weighed with the respondent Corporation while regularizing services of incumbents of 13 categories, also applied to left out category of three employees. But since decision in this regard was to be taken by the Service Committee, court directed the matter to be placed before Service Committee however, interestingly Service Committee again vide order dated September 2012, did not agree for regularisation of the petitioners rather advised the respondent Corporation to follow policy of Regularisation framed by Government of Himachal Pradesh in its letter and spirit.
26. Having perused aforesaid order, this court has reasons to presume and believe that material placed on record alongwith memorandum was not taken into consideration at all by the Service Committee rather, it, in a most cursory and slip shod manner, passed half page order reiterating its earlier decisions. Interestingly Service ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 19 Committee, while passing aforesaid order, recorded that the Board of Directors had taken decision to regularize employees of 14 categories .
in view of professional expertise of such incumbents and necessity of the Corporation at that point of time, but while making aforesaid observation, Service Committee failed to take note of the fact that initially Board of Directors had recommended cases of all the 17 categories for regularization, meaning thereby professional expertise of and necessity of the employees belonging to petitioners' categories was also felt by the respondent corporation but yet Service Committee rt failed to order regularisation of left out categories. Service Committee also observed that previous regularization was made as an exception to the rule and such exception cannot be allowed to become rule so as to regularize present incumbents. Since, Board of Directors had recommended for regularisation of 17 categories including that of the petitioners and at that time, services of employees pertaining to 14 categories were regularized in deviation to the policy of Regularisation of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as such, it is not open for Service Committee to state at this stage, that such exception cannot be allowed to become rule so as to regularize present incumbent.
27. Since it is an admitted case of the respondents that one time deviation in the interest of corporation was adopted to regularize the employees pertaining to 14 categories coupled with the fact that cases of remaining 3 categories i.e. petitioners were also recommended to be ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 20 regularized, one time deviation was required to be adopted in case of the petitioners also, who admittedly for all intents and purposes are .
similarly situate to other 14 categories, which were initially appointed on contract basis alongwith the petitioners' category.
28. Crux of decision of Service Committee dated September 2012, whereby proposal to regularize petitioners' categories came to be declined is that regularization of the petitioners if allowed would of contravene the Government policy of Regularisation but since at the time of regularisation of other 14 categories, one time deviation in the rt interest of corporation was made, it is not understood, why such procedure could not be adopted in the case of the petitioners, who not only were appointed under same advertisement, but their cases were also recommended by the Board for regularization alongwith employees of other 14 categories.
29. No doubt, policy of Regularization of the Government framed from time to time, is required to be followed for regularization of the contractual employees, but since, 14 categories of employees initially appointed on contract basis alongwith that of the petitioners were given regularization in deviation to policy of Regularization of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and their case was also recommended by Board of Directors for regularization alongwith other 14 categories, decision rendered by Service Committee for not regularizing service of petitioners, Annexure R-13 rendered in ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 21 September 2012 is not sustainable in eye of law, being totally arbitrary and discriminatory.
.
30. It is not in dispute that initially Board of Directors filled up 17 categorizes of posts on contract basis, but keeping in view uncertainty and insecurity in job, a collective proposal was sent to Board of Directors for regularisation all the 17 categories, but instead of taking a decision to regularize services of all the 17 categories, respondent of Corporation decided to regularize only 13 categories, which decision of respondent Corporation is unreasonable, arbitrary, unjust and amounts rt hostile discrimination, which is violative of Articles 14, 16 of Constitution of India
31. Needless to say, all the categories form a homogenous class.
One homogenous class is liable to be treated alike and cannot be put to hostile discrimination, without there being any reasonable classification and reasonable nexus of such classification with object sought to be achieved. All the 17 categories form a homogenous class of contract employees and cannot be divided by putting 14 categories in one class for giving them benefit of regularisation and leaving out three categories for depriving them from the benefit of regularisation.
32. Apart from above, there is no justifiable reason for dividing homogenous class into two, which was given different treatment in the matter of regularization. There is no reasonable nexus by making such ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 22 classification with object sought to be achieved, as such, such decision of arbitrary classification has no nexus with object sought to be .
achieved. Hence, action of the respondent Corporation in not regularizing the categories of the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Categories selected by respondent Corporation for giving benefit of regularisation do not have any common trait which may be absent in the left out categories and as of such decision of the respondent becomes arbitrary, irrational and capricious and violative of provisions of Arts.14 and 16 of the
33. rt Constitution of India.
It is not in dispute that petitioners fulfill eligibility qualification, and they have also undergone same selection process, which employees of other 14 categories had undergone, nature of the job of petitioners is also similar, as such they cannot be considered less important and avoidable as compared to that of 14 other categories for giving them benefit of regularisation and advantageous treatment to 14 categories given by the respondent Corporation considering uncertainties and insecurity of job amongst the employees, by respondent No.1, which weighed with respondent Corporation for regularization of 14 categories also existed in case of left out categories of petitioners, therefore, the action of the respondent Corporation is apparently discriminatory and liable to be set aside and ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 23 petitioners are entitled for similar treatment by giving them benefit of regularisation like other 14 categories.
.
34. Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Sibal & Ors. v. Punjab University and Another, (1989) SCC 145 categorically held that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification. Whether a classification is a permissible classification under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) of that the classification must be rounded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from rt others left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In order to consider the question as to the reasonableness of the classification, it is necessary to take into account the objective for such classification and if the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. It has been held in Deepak Sibal supra, as under:
"9. It is now well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification. Whether a classification is a permissible classification under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) that the classification must be rounded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 24
10. By the impugned rule, a classification has been made for the purpose of admission to the evening classes. The question is whether the classification is a reasonable classification within .
the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. In order to consider the question as to the reasonableness of the classification, it is necessary to take into account the objective for such classification. It has been averred in the written statement of Dr. Balram Kumar Gupta, Chair- man, Department of Laws, Punjab University, the respondent No. 2, filed in the High Court, that the of object of starting evening classes was to provide education to bona fide employees who could not attend the morning classes on account of their employment. The object, therefore, was to rt accommodate bona fide employees in the evening classes, as they were unable to attend the morning classes on account of their employ- ment. Admission to evening classes is not open to the em- ployees in general including private sector employees, but it is restricted to regular employees of Government/Semi- Government institutions etc., as mentioned in the impugned rule.
In other words, the employees of Government/Semi- Government institutions etc. have been grouped together as a class to the exclusion of employees of private establishments."
35. Hon'ble Apex Court held that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but, if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, then the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one. If the case of the petitioners is examined in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, there appears to be merit in their case.
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 2536. Employees of 14 categories were also appointed with three left out categories through same selection process and the respondent .
Corporation, with a view to remove insecurity and uncertainty in job amongst the contractual employees, decided to regularize all employees appointed on contract basis. There is no distinction between the petitioners and other persons as such, classification made by the respondents cannot be said to be reasonable. This court has no of hesitation to conclude that decision of Service Committee to exclude the petitioners is not based on intelligible differentia and there is no rt reasonable nexus with object sought to be achieved and same suffers from arbitrariness.
37. In view of the detailed discussion made supra and the law taken into consideration, this court has no hesitation to conclude that alleged decision of the Service Committee in not regularizing the services of three left out categories of the petitioners, is arbitrary unreasonable and there is no rationale in the decision of the respondent Corporation, as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain.
38. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein above, all the petitions at hand are allowed. Respondent Corporation is directed to regularize the services of all the petitioners from the dates, employees of other 14 categories were regularized with all consequential benefits, incidental thereto.
::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS 26The petitions stand disposed of alongwith all pending applications.
.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 17, 2023 (vikrant) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 17/08/2023 20:33:40 :::CIS