YASH PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of CWP No.5374 of 2016 and CWP No.6717 of 2016 together as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions. For reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.5374 of 2016.

(2.) Petitioners are seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the notification issued by the respondent-university vide endorsement dtd. 26/2/2016 (Annexure P-25), withdrawing the benefit of increments already granted to the petitioners pursuant to the resolution No.88 dtd. 28/3/2012 (Annexure P-7) and consequent revision/re-fixation of pay and recovery from their salary without issuing any show cause notice vide letter dtd. 31/12/2015 (Annexure P-22).

(3.) The petitioners were employed as Clerks on contract basis or on daily wage basis sometime in the year 1993 and were paid salary as fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, which is called DC rate. The State of Haryana issued Instructions dtd. 1/10/2003 (Annexure P-1) for regularizing the services of ad hoc employees/contract employees subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Pursuant to Instructions dtd. 1/10/2003 (Annexure P-1), the University regularized the services of the petitioners, including all employees working on ad hoc/contract/daily wages basis w.e.f 1/10/2003. Copy of order dtd. 19/1/2004 regularizing the petitioners has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. The respondent-University framed a seniority list (Annexure P-3) in accordance with para 4 of the regularization policy dtd. 1/10/2003 of all the employees regularized in terms of the said policy and fixed the seniority irrespective of the nature of appointment on the basis of entry into service. Thereafter, the respondent- University issued a joint seniority list of clerks and Steno Typists dtd. 19/3/2012 (Annexure P-3/A) in which, names of the petitioners who were regularized w.e.f 1/10/2003 find mention from Sr. Nos.238 to 326. After the seniority list was prepared, an anomaly was created because the ad hoc employees, though junior to the petitioners, were given the benefit of increments for the service rendered by them on ad hoc basis prior to their regularization and as such, the junior employees started getting higher pay than the senior employees, which caused unrest and discontentment among the senior employees-petitioners. Being aggrieved by the anomaly in fixation of pay as a result of juniors drawing higher salary than the seniors, the petitioners as well as Kurukshetra University Non Teaching Employees Association took up the matter with the University by making written representations dtd. 29/8/2005, 20/3/2006, 29/7/2008, and 24/3/2009 (Annexure P/4 Colly.). Similarly, the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra Non Teaching Employees Association also took up the matter with the University and submitted representations dtd. 22/3/2006, 5/3/2009 and 4/7/2011 (Annexure P-5 Colly.) for redressal of their grievance with regard to refixation of pay at par with the juniors.