^'sii^-'s'^ymm^ A' -I &• ^) i^^9/<»- ^Lc>)^^i— ^. BEPOHE SIA11B AmiBISI^IIES 2gIBUIAI> •A2 : JABAIiPHS . -^W?^, ^z^ 199 7<^: AP?_LIOAM : MJJ^/^i^ )-- Sat. Saroj Yyas, Starl S.E. Yyas. DaiailE Tetaa Bh-odi Offioe Of •Ihe Goaservator of 2'orest, Surg CiraLe, Surg, Z^_H_S_^_S HESPONDEI'TZS i 1« State of ffiadhya Pradeda, 'Zhrough 3?he Secretary Beptt. of Porest SoTt;. of Madhya ?radesh» Ba^opal. 2» Go^tiserTator In (fc ief, P9ptt. of Forest Govt Of M.?« aiopai. . 5» Cfa ief OQ nservaAor, of Porest^ B-aipur, 4t Oonservator of Sorest • Bugg Oirele, Burg. APPLIOMrBlT U/_S 19 OF AffiIIISIH&2ITE S'aiBUMAL ASI. Detalls of application are as ynder s- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1389/2005 APPLICANT Smt. Saroj Vyas Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others RESPONDENTS Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri ^iansndra il4ohan Shrivastava. J. FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF ORDER Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude HEGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BSLASPUR WRIT PETITSON (S) N0.1389/2005 APPLiCANT Smt. Saroj Vyas Versus NON-APPLICANTS State of Madhya Pradesh and others Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri i^anindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. Present: Shri H. B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Pane! La^er for the State/respondents. QRDER (Passed on this ^ dav of Feburary, 2010) By the instant petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of termination order dated 20-05-1986 and for grant of consequentiai beneflts such as reguiarization, seniority and arrears of pay as aliowed by the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (henceforth "the Tribunal") in case of sjmllariy situated emp!oyees. !n the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was initjaljy appointed on 26-03-1984 as Daflari and thereafter she was appointed as Lower Division CEerk(henceforth tLDC1}. The petitioner's semces were terminated on 20-02-1986 which was subsequently canceiled on 20-05-1986. !t was stated that the petitioner was again terminated on 11-12-1986. It has aiso been stated that on 16-03-1981, the petitioner was initially engaged as daiiy v/age empioyee. The of the petitloner is that 13 other slmilar situated employees filed petitioner the Tribunal and those petition were ailovved. it has been stated that in the case of Shobha Walla Vs. State of M.P. Original AppaJication No.S70,i1990, the Tribunai had aiiowed the petition, against which, S.L.P. Vi/as filed by the State, was also rejected by the Supreme Court. The petitioner submlts that as t: simjlarly situated employees approached the Tribunal earlier, they have granted relief and orders passed by the Tribunaj have attained finality, the petitioner is also entitSed to same reiief. (2) In the return fiied by the respondents, claim of the petitioner has been opposed firstly on the ground that She petitioner sought quashing of termination order dated 20-05-1988 after long lapse of 10 years without explaining the delay and the petition is therefore !iab!e to be dismissed on this count aione. Various factual averments made in the petition with regard to initjai appointment of the petitioner as daiiy wage empioyee, the post on which she is working, have been denied. !t has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Cierkon 26-03-1984. (3) !t has also been stated in the return that the petitioner was initially appointed in Raipur CircEe and by order dated 16-06-1984 issued by the Conservator of Forest (Admn.), the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Durg Circie. The petitioner joined at Durg on 04-07-1984. Vide circular dated 17- 01-1986 (Annexure R-l) issued by the Director General of Forests, M.P., it was directed to ali the Conservator of Forests to the effect that after 01-01-1984 some appointments on the post of LDC have been made in violation of Ruies and Instructions, therefore, those appointments should be canceiled. In view of the above, seivices of the petitioner were terminated by order dated 20-02-1986. Thereafter, another circular was issued by Director Generai of Forest on 24-03- 1986 (Annexure R-i!) directing the Conservator of Forest not to take any action as mentioned in circular dated 17-01-19^. In view of the said circular dated 24-03-1986, order of termination of the petitioner was suspended. It is a!so submitted that later on 22-09-1989, memo was issued directing Conservator of €X:-:i Forest, Raipur Circ!e,Raipur not to remove the 14 employees from the services and to maintain status quo ante. It has been stated that in view of the aforesaid djrections, status quo ante was maintained and the petitioner's servlces as LDC were terminated and she was continued as Daily wage employee in muster ro!l. Later on, the petitioner was subjected to selection through departmental examination and interview. After granting reiaxation in age vide order dated 01- 11-1^0(Annexure R-IV), the petEtioner was regularly appointed on the post of LDC on 15-11-1^0 (Annexure R-V). The petitioner thereafter joined as LDC on 15-11-1980 (Annexure R-VI). In view ofthe facts and drcumstances, the case of the petitioner Es not covered bythe orders passed bythe Tribunal in O.A.No.3126 of 1989. !t has aiso been stated in the return that incorrect submission has been made by the petitioner that she has been appointed on the post of LDC on regular basis on 15-11-1^0, and therefore, thepetitioner is not entitled to the reiief as per the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3126 of 1989. The petitloner has suppressed material facts and tried to mlsiead, therefore, the petition shouid be dismissed. (4) By way of rejoinder fiied on 11-10-2007, the petitioner has averred that she was appointed as LDC on 26-03-1984. It has been stated that her services were terminated w.e.f. 03-02-1986 vide order dated 20-02-1986 in view of ietter 17-01-1986. lt has also been stated that the said order was stayed vide order dated 20-05-1986. It has also been stated that again on 11-12-1989, in compliance of memo dated 22-09-1989, services of the petitioner were terminated and she was refegated as Dai!y wage empioyee. Thereafter vide order 01-11-1^0, age relaxation was granted and then vide order dated 15-11-1990, the petitioner was again appolnted as LDC in the pay scaie of 950- 1530. (5) Before I consider rivai contentions of the parties, ! find that though the petition was filed in the year 1996, in the entire petition, She petitioner did not pjace fu!! and correct facts and suppressing many reievant facts necessary for adjudjcation. A perusaS of the petition woufd show that the petitioner approached the Court on the pieading that she has been terminated from seisvJce and aiso prayed for quashing of termination order and regularization, seniority and arrears of pay, as allowed to simiiarly situated employees. However, from She return of the respondents, foliowed by the rejoinder filed by the petitloner herself, Jt is in fact ciear that after termination, the petitioner was again taken in service and later on granting relaxatlon in age, was also granted regular appointment vide order dated 15-11-1990. Ali these facts have not been disclosed in the petition and it was on!y when the respondents came out with the correct facts that the petitioner pleaded this fact by way of rejoinder. (6) From the facts which are admitted on record, it is ciear that injtialiy the petitioner were termjnated from service, iater on termination of the petitioner was kept in abeyance and finaily after granting age relaxation, vide order dated 15- 11-1990, the petitioner was appointed temporarily on the post of LDC on the pay scale of 950-1530 (Annexure R-V) fijed by the petitioner as Annexure X along with rejoinder. (7) The question whjch arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim seniority from her initiai date of appointment and other consequentia! benefsts. The petitioner has placed on record severaiorders passed by the Tribunal in respect of number of employees. Those petitions were ailowed by the Tribunal. Copies of which have been placed on record as Annexure A-1 collectiveiy. From perusal ofthe order dated 16-03-1989(Annexure B.^a.SSa; A-ll), jt is borne out that the petitioner and other LCX3 and Daftari working in the office of Conservator of Forest, Raipur Circle were directed tocontinue in service with direction not to terminate their service. It also appears that the petitioner was later on granted regular appointment vide order dated 15-11-1^0 (Annexure R- V). Number of employees whose names have been shown in the tetter dated 16- 03-1989 (Annexure A-ll), approached the Tribunal and in their cases, similar orderswere passed by the Tribunal which are placed on record collectively as Annexure A-l. An order passed in O.A.No.3126 of 1989 (Smt Sharda Nandukar V. State of M.P. & Others) has also been placed on record. A perusal ofthose orders passed in case of other employees, who along wfth the petitioner were working in the office of Conservator of Forest, Raipur Circle, wouJd show that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in case of Smt. Sharda Nandukar V. State of M.P. & Others in O.A.No.3126 of 1989, simjlar orders were passed in the case of Ku. Geeta Vaishnav, Ku. Pushpa Vaishnav, Ku. Savita Khankhoje, Ku. Geeta Nandukar and Smt. Kaneej Bano. (8) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that as Jn case of other similarly s'rtuated employees working jn the same office, orders were passed by the Tribunal granting them various benefits, the petitioner being similarly situated, he is also entitled to the same benefrts as granted tothose similarly situated employees. particularly when the order of the Tribunal has attained finaljty. Learned counsel submfts that ifthesame benefrt js not granted to the petitioner, it wilj result in discrimjnating and denial for equal pay for equal work. Reliance has been placed in case of The State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, AIR 1954 SC 245, Union of India and others Vs. E. S. Soundara Rajan and others, (1980) 3 SCC 125 and M.R. Gupta Versus Union of India and others, (1995) §SCC 628. (9) On the other hand, Jearned counsel for the respondents submltted that the petitEon is iiabie to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. it is also submltted that the petitioner could not be granted benefit as prayed because the petitioner is neither entit!ed to claim regularization of service from the initia! date of appointment nor seniority, arrears of sa!ary etc. of the regular post from the initial date of appointment as the same was not in accordance with rules and without folSowing any regular process ofselection. It was also submitted thatthe principai of equa! pay for equal v/ork cannot be mechanicaily appiied. According to iearned counsel for the respondents, as the petitioner was initialiy appointed as Daily empSoyee foliowed by a regular appointment vide order dated 15-11-1990, no benefit of regular ser/ice from date anterior to 15-11-1990 much tess senioriSy, arrears of salary could be claimed. It has also been submitted that the petitioner could not claim any relief on the basis of discrimination in order to invoke equaEity clause to apply an iilega! order. According to learned counsel for the respondents, as the petitioner is not entitled to reguiar appointment, seniority and regular pay scaie from the date of initial appointment, she was not entitled to any such retief merely because other simitarly situated LDC working in the same ofTsce have been granted such relief by order of the Tribunal in their cases. Reliance has been p!aced in case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, (2008) 5 SCC 241, State of Punjab and another Vs. Ashwani Kumar and others, (2008) 12 SCC 572 and SSate of Punjab and Another Vs. Surjit Singh B Others. 2099 AJR SCW 6759. (10) ! have considered riva! contentions made by the parties and gone though the records of the case. It is weli settled by catena of decisions that the period of sen/ice rendered as daiiy wage or adhoc basis would not count for seniority un!ess it is found that the initial date of appointment was in accordance with ru!es prescribed for making regular seSection. Ciaim for regularization from the prior to the date of regular appointment so as to include the entire period of service rendered as daily wage or adhoc appointee liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Govemment of Andhra and others Vs» K. others, of Punjab anotherVs. Ashwani Kumar and others(Supra). (11) Further in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Surjit Singh & Others,(supra) it has been heid that dajly wages working in the department of the government, appointed without following process of recrultment cannot claim parity of pay scaie with regular employees and the doctrine of equal pay for equaj work cannot be applied in mechanical manner. The grant of the benefit of the doctrine of 'equat pay for equal work' depends upon a large number of factors jncjudlng equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal Identity of group and vvholesale or complete identity. (12) The ciaim for grant of regularization from the inltial date of appointment and atso payment of reguiar pay scale, arrears of salary and seniority on the ground that in other cases, the Tribunal granted the said benefrt, also cannot be accepted. En the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Surjlt Singh & Others,(supra) whl!e repeaiing arguments whether benefits were granted to junior persons and therefore, the petitioner therein were also entitled to the same benefit, the Supreme Court obsen/ed as under: 48. We would, however. before parting make an obsen/ation that the submission of the learned counsel that only becausesome juniors have got the benefrt, the same by itself cannot be a ground \ for extending the same benefit to the respondents \ herein. it is now well known that the equality clause contained En Article 14 should be invoked only where the parties are similarJy sltuated and where orders passed in their favour is iegal and not illegal. !t has a positive concept. (13) In view of the above. petitioner is not entitled to relief prayed in the petition. The petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude r» ^.