Surender Kumar Etc. v. State Of Haryana Etc.
!"#$!%&'&"()*+&,-.---
) /0
1 2
+!'!(
! 33333
.1
0 "
#$$% "
& '
())*#$$%+ , -./"
0
0 '
2 -333
45 6 7 0"
""
"
6 2 -8 '
"
'0 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners joined as Pump Operator on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.03.1992 and 01.07.1992 respectively. State of Haryana issued policy/instructions dated 07.03.1996 to regularize the services of work charged/casual/daily rated employees on respective posts, who had completed 5 years service on 31.03.1996. Subsequently modified Instructions were issued vide letter dated 18.03.1996 whereby services of the daily wagers who had completed three years' service up to 31.01.1996 were to be regularized on that day. As per the policy Instructions, the services of the petitioners were to be regularized on Group C, Class III post of
Water Pump Operator-II, as they were appointed initially on daily wage basis as Pump Operator on a Class-III post.
3.
But the respondents regularized their services in Group-D, Class-IV post carrying pay scale of Rs.750-940 vide order dated 18.10.1996 (Annexure P-1). As per Notification dated 26.07.1991, the pay scale of the post of APO (Now designated as Pump Operator) is Rs.1200-2040 and its qualification is matriculation with ITI. Aggrieved by the order of regularization in Group D post, the petitioners requested the authorities that they could not be regularized on a lower post on which they had not worked for even a single day. Respondents No.3 and 4 recommended their case for regularization of their services on a Class-III post to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 granted approval vide order dated 03.11.1997 whereby they were ordered to be regularized on Group-C post.
In pursuance of the abovementioned approval, the petitioners though were entitled to regularization to the post of WPO but respondent No.3 considering the fact that the post of 'Work Munshi' as well as the post of WPO were carrying the same pay scales i.e. Rs.950-1400, regularized the services of the petitioners vide order dated 06.02.1998 (Annexure P-3) as 'Work Munshi'. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint, respondent No.4 was directed to investigate the matter and send the report regarding the appointment of the petitioners on daily wages in 'Group C' and their regularization on the post of Work Munshi instead of WPO. Petitioners were also asked to submit their qualification certificates. Petitioners submitted their certificate of BA Part-I and B. Com-Part-III respectively.
Despite having submitted the requisite certificates, respondent No.3 passed impugned order dated 20.04.1998 (Annexure P-7) withdrawing the order dated 06.02.1998 (Annexure P-3) whereby they were regularized in Group-C. Hence, the instant petition.
4.
While issuing notice of motion vide order dated 30.04.1998, recovery from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order was stayed. Petition was admitted on 10.12.2001.
5.
When called out for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioners is covered by judgment dated 14.10.2021 rendered by this Court in CWP No.7370-1997 titled as 'Anil Kumar Mehta Vs. State of Haryana and others'.
6.
On a Court query, learned State counsel does not dispute that the petitioners fulfill the criteria as per the regularization Instructions dated ).)9#$$:
#%)9#$$: 7.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.
8.
I may like to refer to my opinion rendered in Anil Kumar judgment, ibid, relevant thereof is reproduced herein below:
! "#
$ % % % & % % ' %% ((( %% % % '%! % &%% )* %% &% % " + , - % % " %% %%"&% &%. % /
/
/ % " + % % -%% ((( %% & * % * % & -%% ((( %% %% " ( %% "&% " & % " + , % %% '&% 0
) " ! &
! %% % +! /
/
/ % %%%% * % * %! % & % 2 !%3%"&%3
% & % ( %! "%&& !& ! "%" % * % * % +3"%%/
/
/
( % & %3
4& ! -
!" * %"%5 6! (( % %%%% ()( " &% 777 777 777 8/ 777 777 777 (%%!&9 %& & %'%&% % % % %& & %
( % 4& :
!%""% %%5 6(( -% /
/
/ ) & ! % % 3 " %& "& % "%*
"& ;< / % /38
/
8 % %%% "&&!! !
&" %% %%% % % (! ! %%%%% & % % % % % -!% "%" 8 % % %! % ! 81
=
> %% "& % : / % /
/
%.%%% ?-. % " %"% ?,.%4@-3@!%% % /
A %.%%%%%(((%%5 6((%% )%" %* %"% %%& %% "% %%BAC & 0
9.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment, it is thus borne out that in the context of earlier policy/decision of Haryana Government dated 11.05.1994, Supreme Court had already noted in 'Amrit Lal Versus State of Haryana', 1999 AIR (SCW) 4697 that the qualifications for the post of Water Pump Operator Grade II were prescribed by way of two alternatives i.e. a) either an ITI certificate or b) being literato and having minimum experience of 5 years. 10.
Adverting to the policy Instructions dated 11.05.1994 (supra), the same were meant for regularization of services of work charged/casual/daily rated employees as is evident from the perusal of Amrit Lal Judgment, ibid.0& 3
).)9#$$: +
3
#%)9#$$:/ "
& 9 , 9#)##$$: 3
"
'0 &
9#)##$$:
"
' 3;3
0' "
"
6, 9 ## '
" )#)9#$$( )#).#$$(
" <
;
="
;
&
, 9#)##$$: #( 3
' ' 3
"
'0
4
<
7 " -'
<
72
'
2"
2 >333 "
9#)##$$:
).)9#$$:
#%)9#$$: #9 3
'
3
'
?' + /
0
'
#*
'
"
0 1 2 -333 "
9#)##$$:
0
' '
=?' "
&
0
' "
@ AB
#A C , 0
"
9
"
' "
*+&,-.---
6'= D=C
0 D=C