OM PARKASH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by 187 persons who joined the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as the Board) on different posts as work-charged Fitters, Clearner-cum-Messengers, Work Mistry and Work Inspectors etc. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioners joined the operation and maintenance department between 1970 to 1979. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 69 were regularised in the year 1986 and at present are working as Helper Grade-I in the scale of Rs. 350-600. Petitioner Nos. 70 to 187 have, however, not been regularised on their posts in spite of the fact that they have put in 7 to 16 years service as work-charged employees. Petitioners in their writ petition have impugned the revised recruitment and promotion policy for employees working in the Thermal Power Project in the Board as framed vide office order No. 2845/Cadre dated 27.5.1985 (Annexure P/4). Case of the petitioners is that Board had issued a policy regarding recruitment and promotion on 29.10.1980 (Annexure P/1) which was superseded by subsequent policy of 6.11.1981 (Annexure P3). These two policies were later on superseded by a new policy of 7.5.1985 (Annexure P4). Petitioners claimed that the policy Annexure P/4 is detrimental to their interest and the posts which had come into existence under 6.11.1981's policy Annexure P/3, could only be filled up either by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion under the policy Annexure, P/3 only. The petitioners' case further is that as per the letter issued by the Board dated 14.10.1981 P/2 the Board decided to convert 70% of the work-charged posts continuing for the last five years or more into regular posts; that the petitioners who had put in more than five years service in such posts were eligible and entitled to be regularised immediately thereafter but for the reasons best known to the respondents these 70% work-charged posts were not converted into regular posts till November, 1986.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Board, a preliminary objection has been taken that the present writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners did not have any common cause of action in the present petition because the petitioners belong to different categories of posts and have come into service at different stages and as such are not entitled to file the joint writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. I am inclined to sustain this objection of the respondent-Board. From the perusal of the writ petition as it is not clear as to which of the petitioners are working as Helpers, Work Mistry and Work Inspector etc., I asked the counsel appearing for the petitioners into different categories but he was unable to do so. Counsel for the petitioners was further unable to tell the court as to which of the petitioners joined their posts in which years and as to what is their seniority vis-a-vis each other and the direct recruits. A joint writ petition can be filed only if there is common cause of action against the respondent jointly and severally which is lacking in this petition. But, since the petition is pending in this Court for the last four years, I shall deal with the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on merits as well although I have sustained the objection of the respondents-Board regarding the maintainability of the joint writ petition.

(3.) A bare reading of the petition would show that clear cut facts did not merge from the petition and, therefore, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to state his submissions in his own words and the petitioners' counsel stated the following three propositions :-