Rajo Devi v. State Of Haryana And Others
2023:PHHC:166872
! "# ! !
# ****
"
#
$ % &
!
#$ '()
" *+ ,+ + --& ,+ . / 0 /! 0 # + certiorari 1+ 2+ ! -& 3% -3-3 '4+ 5&)
#
2 / * # + ! + # + Mandamus ! /6
2/ /
/ ' ) + 78 ! 2 (9&:;6 ,2 <+ -33&
+
=2 !
8+ <+ (99>; ' 7<+ (99>)
- 2 - .+ $ ? '(()5@35-8<5.. >( 3( (9@: '4+ 5(3)
8+ ! / 2 +
+/ 2 # +
+
! (99> -33> -33A 2 # *+ 2
+ 2 ! # +
# ! / 0 +
!
2 !6
! / ' + +! 2 /+6 8 2+ )
!2 2
/
/! +
+/
'-)
" +/ # 82
/ +
/ + =2 !2 =4 (& (3 (9@A 2
+ + 2 +
,22
0 >( 3% -3(@ " +/ 4 +
(> 3@ -3(9 ! 2
2/+2 6/+ 8 / /+
2 / * + +/ # 5 + / # / + 2 +
" +/ B 2 2 ! ! #+ ! 0 / # +
!
+
2 2 2 /+ 8 + + 2
2
2 2 ! /+ 8+ + A <+ (99> '$$=CD<= 5-) " +/
/ /+
- 3 - 2 #
/! 2 #+ !
2 4 +
(> 3@ -3(9
"
+25 >3 3:
-3-3 + 2
2 !
#
/ 8 2
2/+2 /+ 2+ ! -& 3% -3-3 '4+ 5&) + *
2 2 ! + +/ # # +
#
2 # 2 +! !2
! / + 2
!2 8 / + E
/ +
+ !
/ ' ) + / # + 2 +
"
2
/
B +/ + ! 2
# +22 !6F +22 ! +22 ! 2!
+
! +
! 2
2/+2
+ ! 2
!
/! 6
/ +/2 # 2 $ & /!
+/ /+ ! 4
! 2
2
! # + 0 '"<) (- (- -3-3 2 ,
# +/ # +
! 2
- 4 - 2/+2 # # # 6 + !
'>)
F + 2
!5+ 2 !
! / +
/+ / + / 0#
. + *
2 2 ! + +/ # + / # / + 2 +
2+ ! -& 3% -3-3 '4+ 5&) 2 /
#
# " + * ;
2 ! / # +
# 0 !
2 ! 2 2
! + 2 !
':)
" + +2 /
+ +/ # / /+ # +
/ + =2 !2 =4
) ,+ + + / ! / !
# / 2/ +
2 ! 71+
! 1+
#0;
'%)
$ 2 # + -( 3( -3-( $ % ! 3( -3-- # $ > ! 3% -3--
- 5 - '&)
F + +/2 +/ # 82 + !
/ 2 (& (3 (9@A * + 3> 3> (9@@ # 4 2 2 2 . + # +
+ 2 !
/ #
. # /+
/ 2 2 +
+2 1+ + #0 + + 2 / 2 +! #+ " 2 !5
/ # # + 22 $ >33@6F8 (:
3@ (99( + <+ @ , '+2 G
) <+ (9@A
1+! # 2 !5
/ # + + !
! 2 +!
+! ,22 / 22 $ (%%:5 %% -& % (99- '4+ <5%6() 2
!
# 2 # +2+
" 2 !5
/ # #
2 /+ 2 # + # + / 22 $ >:-- 9 3A (99> '4+ <5%6-) " 2 !5
/ #
+ + / 22 $ &3-A5-@6F8 -- (( (99> '4+ <5%6>) + 2+ $
A(-@6F8 3@ (- (99> # + <+ A
, '+2 G
<+ ) (9@A 2 G !
E # =1+! E 1+ 1+5
- 6 -
/ # +/2 # +
1+ + / # 2
+! # /! =1+! E 1+ ! % :
(99: 2 +
,22 # 0 2 !
/ 82 " 2 +
,22 +/2 / $ -(>%6F8 (- 3@ (99: '4+ <5 %6:) 82
/ '+ +) ++
! +2
1+ + +! + 1+ #
0 #0
/+
/ 2 2 +!
! ,2 +!
# 2 +
,22 :
(( (99: '4+ <5%6%) 2
! # +
2 #+ +2+
. B +/ +
# +! ,22 + '
4+ 5-) # # # + 2 0 . 2
! + 82 +/2 # +
/! D/ F
2
2 +! ,22
/! # # B +/ / 2 / + 2 *
'A)
. +/2 /
B +/ # !
# 2
- 7 - +2 / /
2 . + +/2 2 !
/ # +
2 ! # + ! / ! 2
2/+2
'@)
+ +
'9)
E 4 2 +/2 + ! / * + +/ # +
2 ! # + ! / E / !
# / ! (9@@ /! +! ,22
+ #+ !
/ '(3)
" 2 !
2 + !
# /! 4 ,+ Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, 2006(3) SLR 1 !
+
/ # # /! + -33& / +
/ ! ! 4 +
+ +
'(()
. #+ / / ! ,+
# Uma Devi's and Others (supra) " +2 ,+ 2 2+ / + +
// +
# # ! # 6
- 8 - #+
# + / /! <+ / +2 # / 2 -&
# / / +5 "26. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect. By and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non available posts should not be taken note of for regularization. The cases directing regularization have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law to that effect, after discussing the constitutional scheme for public employment." '(-)
+
*+2 2 0 /+ ! + # + +
2 ! # # 0 */ ! # 6 6 +
/ /+ 2 2 / ! !
2 / 2 2 ! /+ 2 + /
# /!
+
+2 2
/ + / 0 +
.
+ ! +
# 2 ! / 2 #0 2 + / // #+
!
! # !
# + +
2 +/ 2 !2 . 2 ! #0 (9@@ 2 : /+ 0 4+ 5 / 2 +!
- 9 -
# # # 2+ +
/+ + 2 + # # 2 &3 H 2 2+ # 2 ! / + 2 2 #
0 !
'(>)
*+2 Uma Devi (supra) +2 ,+ Union of India and others vs. Vartak Labour Union , 2011(2) SLR 414 1+ *+2 /!
+ ,+ # # + +
2 ! D # + /+ >3 ! # <E # +2 ,+ D .
+
62 / +
+
#0 /!
<E 4+ 5 *
'(:)
=
+ # ,+ Union of India and others vs. Surinder Pal and others , 2012(3) SLR 433
2 # 2
2 2 + /! +2 ,+ Vartak Labour Union's '+ )
'(%)
" ,+ / + +/ 2 >3 ! # + 2 ,+ +
26 2 0 +
2 / +/ / + 2 + + "
- 10 -
4 2 2
+
+2
# # 2 +/ / /+
/ ! 22+2 / !
2 ! +! /# # + ,+ . + (: G (& + / /
2
2 1+
!
. + + 2+ +
/+ #+
2 4 2 42+2 2
5.I ! 2 ! + 2 / 22+2 + / , . +/ / +
2 + !
3( (3 -33> 2 ! 2 /+ +
2
# 0
# 2
# +
# # !
/ # + 1+
!
2 +
2 ! # +/ ! 2 +2
# /+ +! #
'(&)
" +/ / / +
+ ! 3( (3 -33>
/ 2
! + # 1+ ! *+2 (9 (- -3(9 , 5(A@(-5-3(A #
!
+
" !
/!
*+2 +2 ,+ Om Prakash Banerjee vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2023 decided on 19.05.2023 # -& -@ +5
- 11 -
26. The facts of U.P. SEB (supra) are similar to the case at hand. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder:
"3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") had prayed for regularisation of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Electricity Board"). It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3 4 1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3 4 1997 is Annexure P 2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State Government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position".
4. Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board.
5. Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28 11 1996 to regularise the services of its employees working on daily wage basis from before 4 5 1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose.
6. The contention of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28 11 1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4 5 1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily wage basis.
- 12 -
7. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21 9 1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge.
9. The writ petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4 5 1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position". In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28 11 1996.
19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face."
27. The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the Appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit.
28. Therefore, we do not agree with the view taken in the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017. The
- 13 - Appellant herein, in our considered opinion, is entitled to receive back wages and benefits from 1991, along with an interest of 10%.
'(A)
8+ +
+/ 2 >3 ! !
/
2 ! + 2 ! # +
! + /
!
# "
+
2 ! ! 2 !
! /+ / / 4
2 ! # >3 ! #
! + /
'(@)
# / / 2 ! /! 2 ! +
+ # ! 3( (3 -33> 2 (3 3- -33: '
2) + /! 2
! # one month 2 ! '(9)
. # + 2 /
# "
+/ / +
/ / /!
+/ 2 ! (9@A #
+ E 2 0 #
# CWP No.2371 of 2010 titled as Harbans Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 31.08.2010
- 14 - '-3)
. 2 #
/ ! 2
'-()
F / / 2 # /! #
# 2 2 ! '--)
2
+
!
'->)
"
# 2
% !
#&
sham
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No