GHANSHYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is appointed as Supervisor, a Class-III (Group C) post with Haryana Minerals Limited in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 (un-revised) on 1.12.1974. There is no complaint against the work and conduct of the petitioner and it is more than satisfactory. The petitioner, however, was retrenched along with various other employees from the Department, i.e., Haryana Minerals Limited on 25.1.2001. He was issued an experience certificate, copy of which is Annexure P-2, which would show that he had worked for nearly 26 years on the post. The State Government formulated a policy dated 21.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) to accommodate/ adjust the retrenched employees in the entire State. The policy is to re-employ the retrenched employees of Boards/ Corporation/Public Sector Undertakings. Chief Secretary was the Chairman of this Committee with Financial Commissioner and Principal, Secretary to Government, Haryana and other Secretaries being its members. The scheme as formulated for re-employment is for regular retrenched employees of the Boards/Corporations/ Public Secretor Undertakings etc. and it is applicable to those who were retrenched between the period from 1.3.2000 to 1.3.2005. It is provided in the policy that all vacancies of direct recruitment in Group 'C' posts and Group 'D' posts in the Government Departments/Boards/Corporations/Co-operate Federations/Public Sector Undertakings/ Urban Local Bodies/Panchayati Raj Institutions shall be kept apart for adjustment from amongst retrenched employees and further that such adjustment shall be made on an equivalent post carrying the same designation and nature of duties. This is to be done on the availability of vacancies subject to the condition that the employee occupying Group 'C' post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered for adjustment on a Group 'D' post. It is also clarified that an employee occupying Group 'C' post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered on a Group 'D' post. All these employees are to be considered for adjustment on the basis of seniority of age. A list was prepared and the petitioner was shown at Sr.No. 119 of the said list.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that policy of pick and choose has been adopted and he has been put in the list of Class 'D' employees, whereas all other persons, similarly situated, have been appointed on Class-III (Group C) post. Even person junior to the petitioner and shown at Sr.No. 136 has been appointed as a Meter Reader, which is a Class-III (Group C) post. The petitioner immediately represented and prayed for his adjustment on a Class- III (Group C) post. Despite this, the petitioner has been adjusted on a Class-IV (Group D) post as a Ward Servant, though he was working as a Class- III (Group C) post with a pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 (unrevised). The petitioner is a matriculate and accordingly prays that there is no reason with the respondents not to adhere to this policy. He would complain that the decision of the respondents to adjust him on a Group D post would amount to discrimination, thus, violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consideration of India. The petitioner would further plead that this is a case of clear discrimination and would attribute the same to the action of pick and choose on the part of the respondents to accommodate their nears and dears. It is also urged that the petitioner filed a representation, which has also not been attended to and under these circumstances, he was left with no option but to file the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents would raise a technical plea urging that petitioner has no legal right to invoke extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. Reference is made to the recommendation made to Health Department, Haryana by the Chief Secretary for appointing/adjusting the posts of Class-IV employees. On this basis, it is urged that respondent No.3 had issued appointment letter offering a post of Ward Servant in the office of Principal Medical Officer, General Hospital, Bhiwani to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not join the duty within the stipulated time or the extended time and ultimately joined his duties as a Ward Servant on 26.2.2007. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as a Class-IV employee in the Health Department by the Chief Secretary and he having joined the duties, would have no cause to file the present writ petition.