MAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not considering him for absorption.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the petitioner was working in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (for short 'Corporation'). That Corporation was closed down in the year 2002. In the year 2006 (21.06.2006), the State of Haryana floated a scheme for re -employment of regular retrenched Group -C and Group -D employees of various Board/Corporation/Public Undertaking etc. By that scheme it was decided that all further vacancies of Group -C and Group -D would be reserved for such retrenched employees. Apart from other conditions it was stipulated that those employees who had completed 55 years of age on 18.05.2006 or earlier would not be absorbed. The grievance of the petitioner is with the fixing of the date of 18.05.2006.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Advocate General on the other hand has argued that originally as per the policy (Annexure R -1) which was framed on 06.02.2001 some special provisions were made for retrenched employees but they were only to the extent of increasing the age of entry into service for them if they wanted to apply for any Government service. Thereafter, on 18.05.2001 the benefits given to such employees were enhanced in so much as it was decided that 25% of the future posts of Group -C and Group -D would be reserved for retrenched employees for a period of 5 years. As per him, 5 years later by the scheme dated 21.06.2006 the provision of reservation was increased from 25% to 100% and also the scope of the employees who were to be covered was fixed between those who had been retrenched on 01.03.2000 to those who had been retrenched upto 2005. He has further argued that the date of 18.05.2006 as the cut off date was chosen because the earlier scheme of 18.05.2001 was to expire on 17.05.2006 and it was felt that the cut off date should be taken as the date on which the earlier scheme stood expired. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CSIR and others vs. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and another, : 2009(3) SCC 35. In that case the CSIR had framed a scheme for regularizing all Researchers who had completed 15 years on 02.05.2007. That scheme was challenged on the ground that it had been formulated on 03.07.1998 and the cut off date viz. 02.05.2007 was completely arbitrary and had no nexus with the subject sought to be achieved. At this stage, it also needs to be mentioned that the said scheme was formulated on the basis of some directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to frame a scheme for regularization which were partly upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the earlier SLP filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research by order dated 02.05.2007. In the reply the justification given by the counsel was that cut off date was fixed because on that date the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Supreme Court upheld the said date after having considered the judgment passed in D.S. Nakara's case (supra) and held as follows: -