Judgment:
CWP No.11882 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.11882 of 2013 Date of Decision: 19.02.2014 Maha Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and another ....Respondents BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.J.K.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Poonia, Advocate and Mr.P.S.Sullar, Advocate for the respondents.
***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
(ORAL) The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of impugned order dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P-7).whereby, the benefit of deemed date of regularization granted to the petitioner has been withdrawn.
Initially, the petitioner was appointed as T-Mate on 01.12.1978 on work charge basis and thereafter, his services were regularized in the month of February, 1992.
A Screening Committee was constituted in the year 1989 for regularizing the service of employees, who were working on work charge basis and it was recommended that the case for regularization of employees, who were working on work charge basis, be considered.
Thereafter, the services of those employees were regularized whose names were recommended by the Screening Committee.
The petitioner did Kaur Gurpreet 2014.02.24 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.11882 of 2013 2 not appear before the Screening Committee in the year 1989 and therefore, his case was not recommended.
Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the month of February 1992 by the respondents.
The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the authorities concerned to grant benefit of regularization from the deemed date to the post of Helper Grade-II w.e.f.05.09.1991 as it was given to other similarly situated employees.
The Grievance Committee considered the case of the petitioner.
Some of the employees, whose cases were not considered by the Grievance Committee, approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions and they were given benefit of regularization from the deemed date i.e.05.09.1991.
As per decision in those writ petitions, the respondents were directed to grant benefit of regularization from the date their juniors were regularized.
A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.09.2012 to withdraw the benefit which was already granted to him.
The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice and thereafter, the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 was passed, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other similarly situated employees have been granted benefit on the basis of relief granted to the petitioner as their writ petitions were allowed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after withdrawal of the benefit from the petitioner, a review application was filed in those writ petitions where the relief was granted to other similarly situated employees and that review application was also dismissed and thereafter, the LPA was also dismissed but the same was not decided on merits as there was a delay and the LPA was dismissed on the ground of delay only.
Kaur Gurpreet 2014.02.24 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.11882 of 2013 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in the LPA has not been challenged by the respondents and the same has attained finality and hence, it cannot be said that the same has not been decided on merits.
Admittedly, the other similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of regularization from deemed date because of the relief granted to the petitioner and subsequently, the benefit granted to the petitioner was withdrawn by the respondents vide letter dated 14.05.2013, which is a subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
The review petition was dismissed and thereafter, the LPA was also dismissed.
The decision passed in the LPA has not been challenged so far and the said decision has attained finality.
Some of the similarly situated employees namely Prem Singh, Randhir Singh and Ved Singh Malik have approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition Nos.15441 of 2001, 15244 of 2010 and 15262 of 2010, respectively and their petitions were allowed by this Court and they were found entitled for benefit of deemed date of regularization from the date their juniors were granted.
The case of the petitioner cannot be on different footing viz-a-viz those employees who have already been granted the benefit.
Moreover, those employees were granted the benefit of regularization from the date the present petitioner was granted.
The impugned order was passed not only without following the procedure but also without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and moreover, the similarly situated employees have been granted the benefit of regularization from deemed date.
Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to tell as to how the case of the petitioner is different from those employees who have been granted benefits.
In view of the facts as mentioned above, the present petition Kaur Gurpreet 2014.02.24 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.11882 of 2013 4 deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of regularization to the petitioner at par with other similarly situated employees namely Prem Singh, Randhir Singh and Ved Singh Malik.
Allowed as above.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 19.02.2014 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2014.02.24 12:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh