VIJAYA KAUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the orders dated 04.03.2010 (Annexure P-11) and 29.07.2010 (Annexure P-13), vide which the claim of the petitioner for adjustment to the post having a pay scale of Rs.span 5500-9000 has been rejected.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that persons, who were similarly situated, have also been adjusted in the pay scale of Rs.span 5000-7850, which is a post of an Assistant and the same was available in the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Gurgaon, where the petitioner was offered appointment by the respondents vide letter dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure R-2/1). Petitioner contends that she was working as a Sales Girl in the Haryana Small Scale Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Export Corporation') and was posted at Black Partridge Haryana Emporium, New Delhi when her services were retrenched on 30.06.2002. Thereafter, as per the Policy of the Government dated 21.06.2006, a scheme was framed regarding reemployment of regular retrenched Group C and D employees of Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc. who were retrenched during the period from 01.03.2000 to 01.03.2005. According to Clause 7 (i) of the scheme, petitioner was entitled to adjustment either on an equivalent post carrying the same designation and nature of duties or on a lower post as per the availability of the vacancies subject to the condition that an employee occupying Group C post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered for adjustment on a Group D post.

(3.) Petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.span 3050-75-4590 vide order dated 13.10.2006 in the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Gurgaon. In pursuance thereto, she joined the same on 06.12.1986 as she had no option at that stage. Thereafter, she made various representations to the respondents that when she was appointed as a Clerk, there were three posts of Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.span 5000-7850 lying vacant against which the petitioner should have been appointed as per the scheme dated 21.06.2006. This claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide the impugned orders dated 04.03.2010 and 29.07.2010 leading to the filing of the present writ petition, which, according to the petitioner, these orders cannot sustain as the same violates the scheme itself.