Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19370
Decided on: 22.07.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Bharat Singh, A.A.G., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR, Mr. NB Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv., Mrs. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.
Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Daily wagers – Regularisation of services – Natural justice -- If the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy -- Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances -- Eligibility of respondent no.1 for the post he holds has not been controverted -- The fact that he initially entered through the process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not a serious issue – High Court directed the petitioners to confer the status of a regular employee on respondent No.1 – No reason to interfere, SLP dismissed -- Petitioners/ State directed to grant all the benefits, including arrears of pay and seniority, to respondent No.1 from the due date.
(Para 5-8)
ORDER
1. Respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a daily rated employee at Collectorate rate on 26.11.1993. It seems that his services were terminated on 12.05.1995 but after a long gap, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee, he was reinstated in the year 2006. Learned State counsel, however, submits that respondent No.1 was reinstated in the year 2009. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that he is working since then.
2. The issue that arose for consideration before the High Court in the second round of litigation was whether respondent No.1 was entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee, keeping in view the Government policy/Circular and the long period of service rendered by him as a daily wager. The High Court held that respondent No.1 was entitled to regularisation of his services as several persons junior to him had already been absorbed. The intra-court appeal preferred by the State has also been turned down by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned order dated 16.03.2018.
3. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record.
4. We are constrained to observe that the affidavits or the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner-State from time to time, particularly the affidavit of the Commissioner, Technical Education, Bhopal, in purported compliance of our order dated 22.04.2024, are vague, evasive, and misleading.
5. It is true that an employee engaged on daily wages has no legally vested right to seek regularisation of his services. However, if the competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such a policy. Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances.
6. The fact that respondent No.1 has worked as a daily wager from 2005 to 2009 is not in dispute. The eligibility for the post he holds has also not been controverted. The fact that he initially entered through the process in conformity with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is also not a serious issue. That being so, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court directing the petitioners to confer the status of a regular employee on respondent No.1.
7. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. The petitioners are directed to do the needful and grant all the benefits, including arrears of pay and seniority, to respondent No.1 from the due date.
9. The needful shall be done within three months.
Petition dismissed.
********