V.K. SINGLA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I dispose of C.W.P. No. 1137 of 1985, titled V.K. Singla and others v. State of Haryana and another and C.W.P. 2323 of 1987, titled J.N. Garg and another v. The State of Haryana and another, as in the opinion of this Court both these writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment as common question of law and fact is involved in both these cases and the facts are taken from C.W.P. No. 1137 of 1985.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition are that they are Engineering Graduates and belong to a batch of 176 Assistant Engineers selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Service of Engineers, Class II, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1970. 176 successful candidates fell into two categories. The first category comprised of those officers who in consideration of their ad hoc service in the Irrigation Department were straightaway given the sub divisional charge by waiving the condition of in- service-training and petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 of C.W.P. No. 1137 of 1985 belong to that category while petitioners No. 4 to 7 belong to the second category who were imparted the prescribed in-service training. All the petitioners after their usual attachment with various circles of the parent department (Irrigation Branch) got their first appointment on deputation with Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation Ltd. They joined in their respective posts. The posting of the petitioners with respondent No. 2 were in pursuance of some arrangement between the respondents. The petitioners never sought such employment with respondent No. 2 on their own. Fourth petitioner has been reverted to the parent department in June 1984 while other petitioners are still continuing on deputation with respondent No. 2. According to the petitioners their posting in the Corporation i.e. respondent No. 2 even on first appointment was nothing but on deputation to a foreign service in public interest and therefore, by treating their appointment on foreign service they should be granted the deputation allowance as per rules. The petitioners have been denied the payment of the deputation allowance for all the years when they have worked with respondent No. 2 in spite of the various representations made by them in this regard. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) It was also made out in this writ petition that it is obvious that employees on deputation form one class distinct from those posted in the parent department. There can be no further selective sub classification within that class, founded upon the mere exigency of the time of such deputation. In other words, those whose services are placed at the disposal of the Corporation straightaway on their initial appointment cannot possibly be discriminated against from those who are so deputed after putting in one or few days service in the department. Such like mini classification runs counter to the constitutional mandate of equality during employment. The petitioners did not get the relief from the department in spite of the legal notice. With this background, the petitioners have made a prayer that directions be given to the respondents for the release of the deputation allowance to the petitioners.