JOGINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3148 and 13442 of 1993 as in these cases, petitioners have come forward for quashing of the order dated 28.02.1992 (Annexure P -1) passed by the Director, Industrial Training, Haryana withdrawing the benefit of medical leave, which was earlier allowed to them while they were working on ad hoc basis and as a consequence thereof ordering recovery from them.

(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that initially while they were working on ad hoc basis, they were granted the benefit of medical leave, which the petitioners availed of and now after their services have been regularized, vide impugned order, the benefit which was earlier conferred upon the petitioners and given to them is sought to be withdrawn with a further order of recovery. This, the counsel contends is not sustainable in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattanlal and others etc. etc. Versus State of Haryana and others, : AIR 1987 Supreme Court 478. Reliance has also been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Raja Bala Versus State of Haryana,, 2002 (4) S.C.T. 172, where the contract employees have been held entitled to the benefit of medical leave and maternity benefits and the distinction made between the regular employees and contractual employees has been found to be violating of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit which they were wrongly conferred upon and the order dated 28.02.1992, being in consonance with the instructions and the rules framed by the respondents, do not call for any interference by this Court.