Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 390 (HP)

ROSHAN LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2010-03-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Chowkidar with effect from 6.2.1985 to June 1986. He worked as Helper with effect from July, 1986 to March, 1988. He worked as Mechanic Grade-II with effect from April, 1988 to March, 1989. He worked as Fitter 1st Grade with effect from April, 1989 to February, 1994. Thereafter he worked as Complaint Attendant with effect from March, 1994 to March, 1995. He is seeking regularization against the post of Complaint Attendant after completion of 10 years of service. Case of the respondents, in nutshell, is that since the petitioner has not worked for 10 years on one single post, his services could not be regularized. 2. Mr. B.B. Vaid has vehemently argued that action of the respondents of not regularizing services of the petitioner after completion of 10 years is illegal, arbitrary, discrimination, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then argued that similarly situate persons, namely, Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand have been regularized as Complaint Attendants and it is a case of invidious discrimination. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has worked against various posts and has not completed 10 years continuous service on any post, his services could not be regularized. He has denied that the petitioner has been discriminated against by the respondents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner’s initial appointment is with effect from 6.2.1985. He has worked as Chowkidar, Mechanic Grade-II and then he has worked as Fitter 1st Grade with effect from April, 1989 to February, 1994 and thereafter he has worked as Complaint Attendant with effect from March, 1994 to March, 1995. One Sh. Krishan Singh was appointed as Fitter with effect from 6.4.1979 to October, 1982 and then with effect from November, 1982 to December, 1994, he has worked as Mechanic. Sh. Gopal Chand has worked as Job Keeper with effect from 1.9.1979 to 31.10.1983 and then as Mechanic Grade-I with effect from 1.11.1983 to 28.2.1994. Thereafter he has worked like petitioner with effect from 1.3.1994 to 17.12.1995 as Complaint Attendant. Respondents have treated the post of Fitter Grade-I and Mechanic equivalent to the post of Complaint Attendant. Sh. Gopal Chand has worked as Job Keeper with effect from 1.9.1979 to 31.10.1983 and then as Mechanic Grade-I with effect from 1.11.1983 to 28.2.1994. Thereafter he has worked like petitioner with effect from 1.3.1994 to 17.12.1995 as Complaint Attendant. Respondents have treated the post of Fitter Grade-I and Mechanic equivalent to the post of Complaint Attendant. However, in case of petitioner this yardstick has not been adopted, which has led to invidious discrimination. It was not open to respondents at all to treat similarly situate persons differently. Petitioner was required to be treated at par with Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand and the period he has worked as Mechanic, Fitter Grade-I and Complaint Attendant was to be reckoned for the purpose of regularization of his services as Complaint Attendant. The action of the respondents of not considering the petitioner at par with Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner was also required to be regularized against the post of Complaint Attendant treating the post of Fitter 1st Grade and Mechanic equivalent to the post of Complaint Attendant. 6. Mr. R.K. Sharma has further argued that the State Government had moved application bringing to the notice of the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal that the regularization of S/Sh. Krishan Singh and Gopal Chand was illegal. The application preferred by the State is misconceived. If the person is seeking relief, which stand granted to similarly situate person, it is not just and fair on the part of the State Government to withdraw the benefit granted to similarly situate persons. This will amount to unfair labour practice. The State machinery must be sensitive towards the plight of the lowest strata of the society. These are the persons, who need the assistance of the State. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization for the post of Complaint Attendant within a period of six weeks from today. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.