Ranjit Singh vs State of Haryana

J.S. Khehar, J.—The petitioner Ranjit Singh was inducted into the service of the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, as a Beldar on daily wage basis in 1980. In 1986, his services were discontinued. His place was occupied by fresh appointee. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, as a consequence of which the issue of the petitioners disengagement from service was referred to the Labour Court, Ambala. During the proceedings before the Labour Court, Ambala, the Municipal Committee, Ambala City, and the petitioner entered into a compromise as a consequence of which the petitioner was reinstated with continuity in service. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after his reinstatement, the petitioner has continued 10 render service uninterruptedly till date but has not been regularised. The prayer of the petitioner is for regularisation in service.

To claim regularisation, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court instructions dated 7.3.1996 in respect of daily wagers proving for the regularisation of daily wagers who had completed 5 years service on 31.1.1996. Attention of this Court has also been invited to another instruction dated 19.3.1996 vide which the instructions dated 7.3.1996 were modified. The latter instruction contemplated the regularisation of daily rated employees on the completion of 3 years service on 31.1.1996. It is submitted that under the aforesaid instruction, Municipal Committee, Ambala City, had regularised the services of various daily wage employees. In this behalf, it is pointed out that some of those employees were regularised vide order dated 1.1.1996, despite the fact that they did not fulfil the prescribed educational qualifications and the age stipulations. In order to regularise the services of the six employees (regularised vide order dated 1.1.1996) the competent authority had not only relaxed the rules but had also created new posts to accommodate them. Additionally, it is pointed out that Ranbir Singh one of the six employees regularised vide order dated 1.1.1996 was inducted into service of the Municipal Comm ittee, Ambala City, after the petitioner and as such was junior to him. Based on the instructions referred to above and also regularisation of Ranbir Singh. the petitioner asserts his claim for regularisation.

While opposing the claim of the petitioner for regularisation, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in view of the averments made in paragraph 2 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Para 2 is extracted hereunder :-

"2. That as per category/Sr. No. 65 of the Haryana Municipal Services Integration Recruitment and Services Conditions Rules 1982 (Notification dated 5.2.82) the qualification for the post of Beldar is ''Middle Pass'', whereas the petitioner is not middle pass and he can read and write only.

Secondly, as per Government instructions of that time the candidate upto the age of 30 years could only be recruited, whereas the petitioner whose date of birth is 10.8.1962, is more than 30 years of age, as on 31.3.93 as well as on 31.1.96.

Thirdly, the employees who are recruited initially through Employment Exchange, are only to be eligible to be regularised as per Government instructions whereas the petitioner was not recruited initially through employment exchange and the vacancy was not duly advertised at that time.

Hence the petitioner, who does not fulfil the above mentioned qualifications/conditions, is not entitled to be regularised."

Despite the aforesaid objections, it has repeatedly been mentioned in the written statement that the claim of the petitioner for regularisation is under active con- sideration of the State Government and as soon as the State Government grants regularisation in terms of the rules, the petitioner would be regularised.

Insofar as the non-fulfilment of the qualifications and other conditions incorporated in paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, . He has also invited the attention of this Court to the following observations made therein :-

"The main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1982 and 1986 and ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the re-spectiye posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years'' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period, periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of ter-mination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years'' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the senior-most workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991."

Additionally, it has also been pointed out that similar objections raised have been relaxed by the State Government and such a relaxation has also been granted to Ranbir Singh who is junior to the petitioner. The relexation of the aforesaid conditions before the regularisation of Ranbir Singh has not been disputed in the written statements filed on behalf of the respondents. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is evident that despite the fact that the petitioner was rendered about 21 years of service since his initial induction into service in 1980 and about 10 years of service since his reinstatement with back-wages with effect from 1.8.1991, it is evident that the authorities have dealt with the claim of the petitioner for regularisation with absolute apathy. Even a person junior to the petitioner who was similarly situated as the petitioner, was regularised against the post of Beldar vide order dated 1.1.1986 (Annexure P.4). In the aforesaid view of the matter, we uphgld the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the instructions dated 19.3.1996 with effect from the date Ranbir Singh, his junior, was regularised. The concerned authorities are accordingly directed to pass appropriate orders relaxing the appropriate rules and to issue an order of regularisation to the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits thereof like pay and emoluments etc.

Petition allowed.