KHAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of 19 petitions* as common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts are taken from CWP No.9024 of 2004 for convenience. Material facts are also taken from CWP 10017 of 2011 (Khajjan Singh v. State of Haryana & others) as both represent two somewhat different facets of the similar mirror, the former are in motion hearing whilst the latter are on remand from Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State of Haryana against the orders of the Single Bench granting relief of regularization from the dates the juniors were regularized by Government without Court intervention on grounds of discrimination, notwithstanding the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, 2006 4 SCC 1 {for brevity 'Umadevi' (3)} . Orders passed in CWP 10017 of 2011 are more or less central to this case which I will come to later in the discussion. But before that I would go to:-

(2.) CWP No.9024 of 2004 was admitted for regular hearing by the Division Bench on 18th September, 2004 to be listed for final disposal within six months. Earlier, by an interim order dated 29th May, 2004, the Court while issuing notice of motion to the respondents for final disposal of the writ petition, had stayed the operation of the retrenchment notices dated 14th May, 2004 (P-4 & P-5) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Production Division, Yamunanagar and served on both the petitioners and was pleased to issue an interim order directing that they shall be allowed to continue on the same post on which they were working on 14th May, 2004. While admitting the matter for regular hearing, the interim order was made to continue till further orders. On the strength of this interim order, these petitioners have continued in service of the Forest Department as dailywagers, sharmiks or deharidars.

(3.) Briefly stated, petitioner No.1 was engaged on daily-wage basis on 1st October, 1986 while petitioner No.2 was similarly appointed on 1st September, 1988. Their claim for regularization on a Group-D/Class-IV post was rejected by the impugned order dated 11th May, 2004 on the ground that they were not in service prior to 31st January, 1996 and were not on the employment strength of the workforce on 30th September, 2003, the appointed day fixed under the policy circular and thus did not conform to the conditions notified in the scheme of regularization promulgated by the Government of Haryana. They claim that they were both retrenched from service on 14th May, 2004 without circulating any working seniority/priority list for them to know their position therein vis-a- vis their colleagues. In some of these cases the petitioners were protected by stay orders while others were not.