C.W.P. No.6315 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION : 19.12.2011 1. C.W.P. No.6315 of 1998 Jaimal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another. 2. C.W.P. No.5532 of 2000 Kuldeep Singh and another v. State of Haryana and another. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms.Renu, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP 6315 of 1998). Shri Balwinder Singh, Advocate for Shri Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP 5532 of 2000). Shri Sunil Nehra, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos.6315 of 1998 and 5532 of 2000. The cause of grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that the dates of regularization which were conferred upon them and which dates have C.W.P. No.6315 of 1998 -2- been specified in Annexure P-1 vary from the year 1987 to 1988, have been changed to their detriment by converting the dates of such regularisation from the year 1993 in terms of the policy attached with the reply filed by the respondents as Annexure R-1. All the petitioners are working as Ticket Verifiers and were engaged through Employment Exchange from time to time and all of them were working either on daily wages or as casual employees. The petitioners approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No.4743 of 1986 in which they pleaded that the other employees of the Haryana Roadways are being employed on regular basis after they complete 240 days in a particular year, but the Ticket Verifiers working in the same Department are not being given the benefit of that policy. They also plead that they have been discriminated against on the issue of pay as well. Noticing their contention, the Court disposed of the writ petition by observing as follows :- “Keeping in view the dictum of final Court in Bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1987 SC 2049, and Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P&T Department v. Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 2342, I issue the following directions : (1) That for all the Ticket Verifiers, including the petitiones, there should be equal pay for equal work. Therefore, the respondents should sanction a time scale of pay which should not be less than the scale of pay of the Conductors. It is not disputed that the old pay scale of the Conductors was Rs.400-600/- and a new scale of pay has already been brought into force. It would be advisable to sanction the same scale of pay to the Ticket C.W.P. No.6315 of 1998 -3- Verifiers which should be brought into force with effect from 1.1.1986 when the new scale of pay of the other employees of Haryana were sanctioned. Since however, one of the present writ petitions has been filed on 5.3.1987, I direct that the arrears of difference of pay should be paid to the petitioners with effect from 1.4.1987 within three months from today. (2) I further direct that the respondents should prepare a scheme, sanction the number of posts of Ticket Verifiers proportionate to the load of work in each Depot of the Haryana Roadways and consider the petitioners for appointment against those posts. It is, however, made clear that only those petitioners who have completed 240 days service in a year shall be entitled to be considered for appointment to these posts in the order of their length of service. The scheme should be finalised and the posts should be sanctioned and appointments made within three months from today.” The respondents had pleaded that the policy on the basis of which the petitioners had pleaded discrimination, was justifiably not being applied to them. But the Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, had expressed its doubts upon the validity of such a stand and had observed as follows :- “It could not be explained before me that this decision should not apply to the petitioners who are working as Ticker Verifiers for years together.” C.W.P. No.6315 of 1998 -4- The Court was thus conscious of the fact that the element of discrimination existed between the employees of the same Department where the petitioners were working and were not being given the benefit of regularisation on completion of 240 days of service, and neither were they being given the benefit of pay on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and it is for this reason that the aforesaid directions were given. The respondents complied with the direction given by the Court and by virtue of Annexure P-4, 158 posts of Ticket Verifiers were created and pursuant to this, Annexure P-5 was passed regularizing the services of the petitioners with effect from the dates which have been indicated in Annexure P-5 and which also finds resonance in Annexure P-1. By virtue of Annexure P-9, the effect of order Annexure P-5 is being sought to be nullified and the petitioners' services are sought to be regularised from 1.4.1993 on the strength of the policy Annexure R-1 which policy was framed on 11.5.1994 seeking to regularise the services of ad hoc employees who have completed 2 years service as on 31.3.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that this obviously could not have been done, as it amounts to negating the effect of the earlier judgment and the policy which has come into existence in the year 1994 and cannot be made applicable to them especially when their services had already been regularised keeping in view the observations of this Court rendered in the earlier writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, would seek to justify their action in view of the policy Annexure R-1. After considering the entire matter in detail, I am of the opinion that the impugned order Annexure P-9 and the other related orders which have been attached with C.W.P. No.5532 of 2000, cannot be permitted to stand. This Court by way of the earlier decision rendered has clearly observed that the services of the Ticket Verifiers should be regularised after framing of scheme to ascertain a C.W.P. No.6315 of 1998 -5- workload in each Depot of the Haryana Roadways and after determining such sanctioned strength, the services of those persons be regularised who have completed 240 days in a calendar year and by keeping in view the length of the service. There is no ambiguity in the observations made by the Court and which were duly complied with by the respondents. By virtue of Annexure P-4, the sanctioned strength was created and by virtue of Annexure P-5, necessary dates of regularisation were conferred upon the petitioners. The policy Annexure R-1 which has been framed subsequently, cannot be applied to the petitioners to their detriment to change the dates of their regularisation, especially once this benefit flows from the directions of this Court. It is also to be noticed that the directions of this Court stood complied with in letter and spirit and it is after a lapse of six years that the effect of the earlier judgment is sought to be unsettled. This action can simply be termed to arbitrary and irrational. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders Annexure P-9 (in CWP 6315 of 1998) and Annexure P-12 (in CWP 5532 of 2000) are set aside. As a direct result therefore, the consequential benefits that may ensue to the petitioners, shall be made available to them, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within a period of four months from today. (MAHESH GROVER) December 19, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO