Mohinder Pal and Others vs H.P. University and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—The Petitioners have prayed for a direction to the Respondents to regularise the services of the Petitioners from the date they were appointed on ad-hoc basis as it has been done in the case of other employees of Respondent-1/University. The further case of the Petitioners is that the regularisation of Petitioners after six years from the date of their ad-hoc appointments may be quashed and set aside.

The facts in brief are that in October, 1992, the Respondent No. 1 initiated the process to fill up the posts of Junior Engineers. The Respondent No. 2 after following the due process and after meeting the codal formalities as provided under the relevant ordinance of the University vide office order dated 26.10.1992 Annexure A-1 had appointed Petitioners No. 1 and 2 as Junior Engineers (Civil) with effect from 27.10.1992. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 had joined as such on 27.10.1992 which is clear from the office order dated 23.11.1992 Annexure A-2. The Petitioner No. 3 similarly was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on ad-hoc basis. The Petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide office order dated 26.6.1993 Annexure A-4 on ad-hoc basis. The Petitioner No. 5 vide office order dated 6.9.1993 Annexure A-5 was also appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on ad-hoc basis. The Petitioners discharged their duties like regular appointed Junior Engineers. They were paid salary and all allowances as were paid to the regular appointed Junior Engineers. The Petitioners were treated as regular Junior Engineers for all intents and purposes.

In the year 1998 Respondent No. 1 held a meeting of Recruitment & Promotion Committee for regularisation of ad-hoc services of the employees of various categories including Petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 on the recommendations of Recruitment & Promotion Committee was pleased to regularise the ad-hoc services of the Petitioners on the posts of Junior Engineers vide office order dated 25.9.1998 Annexure A-6 with immediate effect. The Petitioners were confirmed in the year 1999.

The Petitioners were not given the same treatment as was given to other employees. It has been pleaded that one Anjna Sharma, Clerk was appointed on ad-hoc basis on 22.4.1994. The Recruitment & Promotion Committee recommended the regularisation of Smt. Anjna Sharma w.e.f. 22.4.1994 and she was confirmed on 23.4.1995 vide office order dated 3.4.1999. It has been pleaded that the Petitioners have been discriminated.

The Petitioners submitted representations regarding their grievance for regularisation from the date they were appointed on ad-hoc basis as has been done in other cases, but Respondent No. 1/University has not responded positively to the representations made by the Petitioners. The Petitioners have stated that the impugned action of Respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Respondents No. 1,2 have contested the petition by filing reply dated 6.6.2006. It has been stated that Recruitment & Promotion Committee regularised the officials on 25.9.1998 after taking into consideration the availability of posts and merit in each case. The Petitioner No. 1 was appointed on ad-hoc basis from the daily wage basis vide office order dated 26.10.1992. The Petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed by Vice-Chancellor on ad-hoc basis vide office order dated 13.7.1992, 26.6.1993 and 6.9.1993 respectively from daily wages. It has been denied that the Petitioners were treated as regular Junior Engineers. The Recruitment & Promotion Committee recommended the regularisation of the Petitioners with immediate effect vide office order dated 25.9.1998 Annexure A-6 and not retrospectively. It is within the powers of Recruitment & Promotion Committee as to from which date regularisation of services is to be considered particularly subject to the availability of posts, merit of the cases and availability of funds. The representations of the Petitioners are being considered.

The Petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply of Respondents No. 1 and 2. It has been stated that Petitioners were also granted Assured Career Progression Scheme increment after eight years of service from the due date i.e. 2000 after taking their ad-hoc service as regular service. The Petitioners were entitled for ACP increments after the completion of sixteen years of service but the same has not been granted to them. The Respondents are blowing hot and cold in the same breath. The Recruitment & Promotion Committee cannot act whimsically and in capricious manner. The Petitioners were fully eligible and qualified as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules and there were nine posts at the time when the Petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis.

This Court on 1.9.2010 had directed the Respondents to file a fresh affidavit meeting out all the averments made by the Petitioners in the petition more particularly in para 10. The Respondents have thus filed reply/affidavit on 4.10.2010. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that Recruitment & Promotion Committee, for the case of the Petitioners and the persons who were regularised from the date of ad-hoc appointments were different. It has been stated that Respondents had acted on the recommendations of the Recruitment & Promotion Committee meeting held on 19.9.1998 in respect of regularisation of services of technical staff of construction division. The said Committee in its wisdom recommended the regularisation of the Petitioners with immediate effect.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were regularised as Junior Engineers w.e.f. 25.9.1998 whereas in several other cases the Respondents had regularised the ad-hoc employees from the date of their ad-hoc appointments. The Petitioners were also given benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme after eight years of service. The benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme could be given only after eight years of regular service. The stand of Respondent No. 1/University that Recruitment & Promotion Committee had recommended the regularisation of Petitioner on 19.9.1998 with immediate effect, but it has not been denied that in several other cases the Respondent No. 1 has regularised the services of ad-hoc employees from the date of initial appointments on ad-hoc basis.

The Petitioners have taken the specific stand that regular posts were available when they were appointed on ad-hoc basis after completion of codal formalities required for regular appointments. It has been stated that regular posts were available with the Respondents but still they were appointed on ad-hoc basis, even though they were given the benefits of regular employees and therefore, Respondents have erred in not regularizing the services of the Petitioners from their initial appointments on ad-hoc basis.

The Petitioner No. 3 was appointed Junior Engineer (Electrical) whereas the other Petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil). The perusal of Annexure R-2 indicates that there were ten posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) and three posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical) and two posts of Junior Engineers (Design). As against ten posts of Junior Engineers (Civil), Rakesh Kumar and Sanjay Sharma stand promoted as Assistant Engineers on 20.12.1990. Anil Kumar Nagpal had resigned. Thus, as against ten posts only seven Junior Engineers were working including Petitioners Mohinder Pal, Upender Kumar and Jyoti Parkash. In the category of Junior Engineer (Electrical) Kamlesh Kumar Petitioner was working and in the category of Junior Engineer (design) Sanjay Kumar Bhardwaj was working. Thus regular posts were available to all Petitioners even though they were appointed on ad-hoc basis in the beginning.

The Petitioners have been given benefit of ACP after eight years of service. It is not the case of the Respondents that benefit of ACP after eight years of service was given even to ad-hoc employees. The Respondents have taken the plea that for considering the case of Petitioners, the Recruitment & Promotion Committee was different. The Respondents have not denied that in several cases the Respondent No. 1 had regularised the services of ad-hoc employees from the date of their initial appointments on ad-hoc basis. Simply because the Recruitment & Promotion Committee for considering the case of the Petitioners for regularisation was different, this is no ground to deny the Petitioners regularisation from the date of their initial appointments on ad-hoc basis. The Respondents have clearly discriminated with the Petitioners for not granting them regularisation from their initial appointments on ad-hoc basis. This action of Respondents is arbitrary and in violation of under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The regularisation of the Petitioners from 25.9.1998 by ignoring their regularisation from their initial date of appointments on ad-hoc basis is not sustainable.

No other point was urged.

The result of above discussion, the petition is allowed. The regularisation of Petitioners w.e.f. 25.9.1998 and not from their date of initial appointments on ad-hoc basis is set aside. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioners for regularisation in light of above decision from the date of their initial appointments on ad-hoc basis as Junior Engineers in Respondent-1/University within a period of three months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment to the competent authority by Petitioners and to implement the decision so taken in further one month with all consequential benefits. No costs.