Punjab-Haryana High Court
Trilok Chand And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 November, 2016
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.23922 of 2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23922 of 2016
Date of Decision: 21.11.2016
Trilok Chand and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate,
with Ms. Rimple Kadyan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The facts of this case squarely fit into the facts in CWP No.27024 of 2013 and four connected writ petitions cited as in lead petition titled Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana and others decided by a Coordinate Bench on January 20, 2016 in cases involving an identical issue arising in the same department on the same cause of action just as the petitioners Trilok Chand and others seeks in this petition brought by them. Like those in Jai Bhagwan etc Trilok Chand and others work as daily wagers in the respondent department. Their claim for regularization is based on the foothold of relief obtained by similarly placed persons whose writs have been allowed in Jai Bhagwan's case. A copy of the judgment has been placed on record as Annex P-16.
Since the matter involves the same department and a common lis, Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are entitled to similar relief on principles of parity of treatment and equality with those who are happy and enjoying the fruit of litigation. That apart, Mr. Malik cites the law in Hari Nandan Prasad 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2016 04:17:26 ::: CWP No.23922 of 2016 -2- and another v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and another; 2014 (2) SCT234 (SC), Khajjan Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2015 (1) SCT 604: 2015 (2) RSJ 135 and the learned Single Judge decision in CWP No.9873 of 2013 in case titled Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana and others decided on May 07, 2015 (P-13) relying on dicta in Hari Nandan Prasad and Khajjan Singh cases and the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556.
In view of the settled legal position so far as the department is concerned it would not be necessary to issue notice of motion in this case to the same department which has implemented the orders passed against it only to delay the matter for awaiting response expecting a different result. It would be expecting too much from the State to take a different stand in this case and, therefore, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the department will take up the final demand notice dated September 04, 2016 (P-12) submitted by Trilok Chand and others and pass an appropriate order in the light of the orders passed in implementation of the decision in Jai Bhagwan's case (supra).
As a result of the aforesaid factual position a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and grant them the desired relief. Let the consideration take place within three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
On the passing of the order, the petitioners would be entitled to all consequential benefits in the same terms as granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid bunch of cases so that petitioners are not compelled to come 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2016 04:17:27 ::: CWP No.23922 of 2016 -3- back to this Court for resolution of consequential and residuary issues in the future and all rights flowing from regularization from the appropriate and due date are taken care of today to prevent the burden of litigation which might be forced upon the petitioners tomorrow needlessly. As the saying goes; a stitch in time saves nine.
Order dasti.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE
21.11.2016
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 26-11-2016 04:17:27 :::