JAI NARAIN KAUSHIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 570 of 2012 titled as "Jai Narain Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Another" and ten writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14624 of 2013 titled as "Sushil Kumar Rastogi v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 14630 of 2013 titled as "Gulshan Kumar v. State of Haryana and And Other connected Writ Petitions Others", No. 16953 of 2013 titled as "Albel Singh v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 17101 of 2013 titled as "Santosh Rohilla v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 17162 of 2013 titled as "Virender Singh Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 23993 of 2013 titled as "Ramesh Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 25090 of 2013 titled as "Dev Raj and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 26174 of 2013 titled as "Ravinder Kumar Manchanda and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 28667 of 2013 titled as "Sudhir Kumar Sehgal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others" and No. 793 of 2014 titled as "Jagbir Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 570 of 2012.

(2.) BETWEEN the year 2002 to 2004, three Corporations, owned by the State of Haryana i.e. Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC), Haryana State Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited (CONFED) and Haryana Mines and Minerals Corporation Limited (HMMCL), went into loss. All the three were the monopoly Corporations dealing with specific sphere of activities in which private entrepreneurs were not making any participation. Even then all the Corporations failed to yield requisite results. Service to the consumers was not provided and they failed to attract requisite finances. In such like situation who is to be blamed? Definitely, the persons who were working in those Corporations. Inference would be that commitment was lacking in them.

(3.) AFTER retrenchment of the appellants, they got retrenchment compensation. After a break in service ranging from two to four years, a favour was shown to them. They were taken back into service under a Scheme to re -employ retrenched Group 'C' and 'D' employees of Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc. who were retrenched during the above said relevant period, subject to the following terms and conditions: