Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The services of the petitioners herein were regularised vide order dated 10.03.1997 in terms of the G.O. Dated 17.12.1996, w.e.f. 17.12.96. Subsequently, said order was superseded by the impugned order dated 09.05.97 to the extent that such regularisation of the petitioners herein was made effective w.e.f. 01.03.97 and not from 17.12.96. It is under these circumstances that this writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging aforesaid order dated 09.05.97.

During pendency of this writ petition, an amendment was made on 02.09.11 challenging the order dated 10.03.1997 to the extent it granted regularisation of services w.e.f. 17.12.96 and to the extent the order dated 09.05.97 granted it w.e.f. 01.03.97. Another amendment application was filed for adding certain grounds and reliefs for challenging the vires of Rules 4, 5 & 6 of the Regularisation rules 1996. The said amendment application was allowed in the year 2013 and thereby, the vires of the rules is also under challenge.

Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the rules in question are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, this Court as well as the Supreme Court, to the effect that the petitioners, though designated as part time tube-well operators were in fact performing the same duties and were putting in same working hours and possessing same qualifications as the regularly appointed tube-well operators, there is no reason why they be not treated as regularly appointed w.e.f. the date of their initial engagement/appointment, accordingly he submitted that the regularisation of their services w.e.f. 01.03.97, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the regularisation rules of 1996, is unreasonable and arbitrary. The regularisation rules, in fact, should have permitted the regularisation of services w.e.f. the date of initial appointment and only that could have been a just and reasonable provision.

In pursuance of directions of this Court, Rules for regularisation of services of part time tube well operators were framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and were circulated vide Government Order dated 17.12.96, which clearly mentioned that for such regularisation additional posts were being created/sanctioned. As per Rule 3 (d), 'Part-time Tube-well Operator' included a person who was designated or appointed as Tube-well Assistant by Government Order dated 20.02.92. As per Rule 4 (I) any person who was appointed on the post of part time tube-well operator before 1.10.86 and was continuing in service, as such, on the date of commencement of these Rules, possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment to the post of Tube-well Operator at the time of such part time appointment shall be considered for regular appointment to the post of Tube-well Operator before any regular appointment is made on such post in accordance with the service Rules. Rule 6 (I) provided that a person appointed under these Rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of the order of appointment after selection in accordance with these Rules and shall in all cases be placed below the persons appointed on the post of Tube-well Operators in accordance with the service Rules prior to the appointment of such persons under these Rules.

Regularisation of services from an anterior date/ retrospective effect, apart from the legal aspect of the issue, also has a financial implication. The State would be burdened with huge financial liability in terms of claims of Time-scales/Promotional Pay Scales/Financial Up gradations under ACPS with retrospective effect resulting in enhanced salaries and post retirement benefits.

So far as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution on the basis of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, this Court and the Supreme Court on the ground of similarity in the nature of duties and qualifications etc. of part time tube-well operators and full time tube-well operators, is concerned, in my view, said findings have relevance only for the purpose of pay parity and that would not by itself entitle the petitioners herein to be treated as regularly appointed from the date of their initial appointments nor for regularisation of their services from such dates. Undeniably, pay parity has been given to the petitioners herein with the regularly appointed tube-well operators and there is no dispute in this regard. In fact the petitioners at the time of filing of Writ Petition No. 17350 of 1992 etc. claiming parity in pay with regular employees could have claimed regular appointment or regularisation of services from their initial date of appointment but they did not do so, nor was any such relief granted. Even pay parity has not been granted from the initial date of appointment.