Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 05, 2009 Ghanshyam Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ishwar Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who is appointed as Supervisor, a Class-III (Group C) post with Haryana Minerals Limited in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 (un-revised) on 1.12.1974. There is no complaint against the work and conduct of the petitioner and it is more than satisfactory. The petitioner, however, was retrenched along with Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : various other employees from the Department, i.e., Haryana Minerals Limited on 25.1.2001. He was issued an experience certificate, copy of which is Annexure P-2, which would show that he had worked for nearly 26 years on the post. The State Government formulated a policy dated 21.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) to accommodate/ adjust the retrenched employees in the entire State. The policy is to re-employ the retrenched employees of Boards/ Corporation/Public Sector Undertakings. Chief Secretary was the Chairman of this Committee with Financial Commissioner and Principal, Secretary to Government, Haryana and other Secretaries being its members. The scheme as formulated for re-employment is for regular retrenched employees of the Boards/Corporations/ Public Secretor Undertakings etc. and it is applicable to those who were retrenched between the period from 1.3.2000 to 1.3.2005. It is provided in the policy that all vacancies of direct recruitment in Group `C' posts and Group `D' posts in the Government Departments/Boards/ Corporations/Co-operate Federations/ Public Sector Undertakings/Urban Local Bodies/Panchayati Raj Institutions shall be kept apart for adjustment from amongst retrenched employees and further that such adjustment shall be made on an equivalent post carrying the same designation and nature of duties. This is to be done on the availability of vacancies subject to the condition that the employee occupying Group `C' post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered for adjustment on a Group `D' post. It is also clarified that an employee occupying Group `C' post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered on a Group `D' post. All these employees are to be considered for adjustment on the basis Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : of seniority of age. A list was prepared and the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.119 of the said list. The grievance of the petitioner is that policy of pick and choose has been adopted and he has been put in the list of Class `D' employees, whereas all other persons, similarly situated, have been appointed on Class-III (Group C) post. Even person junior to the petitioner and shown at Sr.No.136 has been appointed as a Meter Reader, which is a Class-III (Group C) post. The petitioner immediately represented and prayed for his adjustment on a Class-III (Group C) post. Despite this, the petitioner has been adjusted on a Class-IV (Group D) post as a Ward Servant, though he was working as a Class-III (Group C) post with a pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 (un- revised). The petitioner is a matriculate and accordingly prays that there is no reason with the respondents not to adhere to this policy. He would complain that the decision of the respondents to adjust him on a Group D post would amount to discrimination, thus, violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consideration of India. The petitioner would further plead that this is a case of clear discrimination and would attribute the same to the action of pick and choose on the part of the respondents to accommodate their nears and dears. It is also urged that the petitioner filed a representation, which has also not been attended to and under these circumstances, he was left with no option but to file the present writ petition. The respondents would raise a technical plea urging that petitioner has no legal right to invoke extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. Reference is made to the recommendation made to Health Department, Haryana by the Chief Secretary for appointing/adjusting Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : the posts of Class-IV employees. On this basis, it is urged that respondent No.3 had issued appointment letter offering a post of Ward Servant in the office of Principal Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not join the duty within the stipulated time or the extended time and ultimately joined his duties as a Ward Servant on 26.2.2007. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as a Class-IV employee in the Health Department by the Chief Secretary and he having joined the duties, would have no cause to file the present writ petition. In para 10 of the writ petition, names of those employees are mentioned, who were adjusted on various posts of Group C (Class-III) post. It is also averred that person junior to the petitioner, who was under matriculate, has been adjusted on a Class-III post as a Meter Reader, whereas petitioner, though a matriculate, has been adjusted on a Group D post. In the reply initially filed to para 10 of the writ petition, respondents had remained vague and had not explained this aspect. There was no denial to the averment made in para 10 of the writ petition. It was simply stated that it did not relate to the answering respondents (respondent Nos.2 & 3). This fact was noticed by the court while hearing the case on 1.7.2009. The case was adjourned to 15.7.2009 on the request of the State counsel to have instructions in this regard. On 15.7.2009, State counsel was directed to indicate the circumstances under which the persons junior to the petitioner were adjusted to Class-III post, whereas the petitioner was offered Class-IV post. Necessary affidavit in this regard was directed to be filed. This affidavit has now been filed by Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 2008 (O&M) : 5 : Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani being authorised by the Chief Secretary. It is now disclosed that when the matter was considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting on 19.10.2006, the column of academic qualification in case of the petitioner was left blank. This accordingly led to the adjustment of the petitioner against the available vacancy of Group D. It can, thus, be seen that primarily the petitioner was adjusted on Group D post because of his educational qualification having not been mentioned in the column meant for this purpose. It is not a matter of dispute before me that the petitioner is a matriculate and this qualification inadvertently could not be mentioned in the documents, which were placed before the Screening Committee. It would also come out from the averment made in the petition that even persons, who are under matriculate, have been adjusted on Group C posts. It is, thus, because of this inadvertent or deliberate mistake that the petitioner has been adjusted on Group D post. Despite this mistake having been now detected, as can be seen from the additional affidavit now filed, the respondents are reluctant to correct the same. This attitude may be an indicative of some undercurrent at play against the petitioner. This may even lend support to the averment made in the petition that the respondents had adopted the policy of pick and choose. If allowed, it would lead to discrimination. Even if on account of some inadvertent mistakes, the educational qualification of the petitioner was not forwarded or noticed at the time of the meeting by the Screening Committee, this error was required to be corrected. The situation that a senior is adjusted on a lower post than the juniors, who are even Civil Writ Petition No.6675 of 2008 (O&M) : 6 : less qualified cannot be accepted and allowed to perpetuate. State being a model employee, is expected to be fair to all its employees and if some one is made to suffer discrimination, then such mistake is required to be corrected. Still, the respondents would not agree to correct this mistake. This attitude of the State certainly is not worthy of appreciation. This situation cannot be allowed to remain. The petitioner has made out a case for interference. The action of the respondents in adjusting the petitioner on a Class-IV post is set- aside. The respondents would immediately adjust the petitioner on a Class C post, equivalent to the post earlier held by him and for this purpose if any accommodation is to be made, same shall accordingly be done. The petitioner would also be entitled to all consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall also pay a costs of Rs.10,000/-. September 05, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE