SUDESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the aforesaid two petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 4663 and 10284 of 2011. Since common questions of law and facts are involved, the same are being disposed of by this common order. The facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 4663 of 2011. By this petition the petitioner claims retiral benefits. She was appointed as a Craft Teacher on 1.5.76 in the Panchayat Samiti, Karnal. Thereafter the following order was passed on 13.5.85 regularising her services: -

(2.) IN the year 2005 a new scheme was started called DWCRA Scheme by the respondent -State of Haryana in each block and under the scheme an additional post of Gram Sevika was sanctioned. Those posts were lying vacant and, therefore, Government felt that since great hardship was being faced in the proper implementation of the scheme the department of Development and Panchayats was ordered to take 45 teachers in the Development Department by transfer on ad hoc basis. The petitioner was one of those 45 regular Craft Teachers who were transferred under the said scheme. By letter dated 01.10.2003 the respondents took a decision to regularise all persons who were working on ad hoc basis and pursuant thereto the services of 33 out of 45 Craft Teachers were regularised as Gram Sewika including some who were junior to the petitioner as Craft Teachers. The case of the petitioner and other persons could not be considered because their service record was not available. In the meantime the petitioner retired on 31.01.2010. Much to her shock she was denied retiral benefits on the ground that her services as Gram Sewika had not been regularised and at the time when she had joined as a Gram Sewika she had given an undertaking that she would not claim any benefit of her previous service as a Craft Teacher. Hence the present petition.

(3.) THE first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the right of the petitioner for regularisation crystalised on the date when a person junior to her was regularised and thereafter what the petitioner would be asserting would not be so much a right of regularisation but a right of non discrimination. He has further argued that had the scheme not lapsed and subsequently petitioner's case considered for regularisation it would have to be from the date her junior was regularised. In these circumstances as per learned counsel the fact that the scheme lapsed would have no relation to the case of the petitioner for regularisation with effect from the date her junior was regularised. He has further relied upon a decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 17695 of 2011 decision on 27.03.2012, Dropadi Devi v. State of Haryana and has argued that the petitioner therein was one of the persons who were junior to the petitioner and whose case has also similarly not been regularised. In the said case this Court held as follows: -