C ESWARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is to grant regularisation to the petitioners from earlier date, i.e., after the completion of five years of service by the petitioners.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners were appointed on contingency basis as Watchmen. THE services of the petitioners were regularised by the first respondent along with 47 similarly situated contingency staff by G.O.Ms.No.204, (AAIV) Department dated 18.03.1991.

(3.) THE learned counsel also submitted that in the decision reported in 2006 Writ Law Reported 327 (N.S.Balasubramanian and 18 others vs. Food Corporation of India rep.by the Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi and two others) this Court has taken a similar decision following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para Nos.13 to 16 and the said judgment reads as follows: "13. Here in this case, the claim of the petitioners are that they are entitled to be treated like similarly placed persons, who are the petitioners before the Kerala High Court and who are paid the recovered amount. In effect, the contention of the petitioners is that they shall be treated equally and if any discrimination is made on the ground that petitioners 1 to 16 have received Voluntary Retirement Scheme benefits and therefore they are not entitled to get the recovered amount, the same will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. Article 14 of the Constitution of India clearly prohibits discrimination and if any discrimination without any intelligible differentia, certainly violation will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is a guaranteed fundamental right available to any person. THE said right being the fundamental to treat equally among equals, cannot be negatived on the plea of waiver or estoppel as rightly held by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court. 15.In the light of the above submissions and judgments, there is no substance in the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that petitioners 1 to 16 are not entitled to maintain the writ petition after accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 16.(a) THE learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 3588 (K.C.Sharma v. Union of India), wherein in para 6 it is held as under,