Similarly Situated Employees Already Regularised Cannot Be Denied Same Benefit Without Intelligible Differentia: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that an employee whose appointment was made under the same staffing pattern and in identical circumstances as other employees who have already been regularised cannot be denied the same benefit in the absence of any intelligible differentia. The Court observed that doing so would amount to unequal treatment amongst equals.A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State against a Single Judge's order directing the regularisation of a college employee.The respondent was appointed as a Counter Clerk on a temporary basis in November 1982 by the Principal of H.P.S. College, Madhepura, in anticipation of the creation of a sanctioned post. His services were subsequently recommended for regularisation, and he relied upon a State Government notification dated May 10, 1991, permitting employees appointed prior to May 10, 1986 to continue in service and be adjusted against future vacancies.Although he was called for an interview in 1997, his services were not regularised. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court seeking absorption to a Class III post with consequential service benefits. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.Assailing the order, the State contended that the respondent's appointment was made against an unsanctioned post by the Principal, who lacked the statutory authority to make Class III appointments. It further argued that the appointment had been made without any advertisement or competitive selection, rendering it illegal and incapable of regularisation in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) and the Full Bench judgment in Ram Sewak Yadav v. State of Bihar.The State also submitted that pursuant to earlier directions of the High Court, 199 temporary employees were considered for regularisation, of whom 196 were absorbed against sanctioned vacancies. Since the respondent was not found eligible and did not challenge the notification issued in 2005, the same had attained finality. It further argued that the writ petition, filed in 2016 nearly three decades after the initial appointment, suffered from gross delay.The Division Bench observed that there was no dispute with the legal principles laid down in Uma Devi and Ram Sewak Yadav, reiterating:“A judgment is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what may logically follow therefrom.”The Court emphasised that the applicability of a precedent depends upon the factual matrix of each case. Examining the record, the Bench found that the University had recommended sanction of Class III and Class IV posts under the prescribed staffing pattern and that the respondent's name formed part of the very proposal sent to the State Government. It further found that several employees whose names appeared in the same list and whose appointments were made during the same period under identical circumstances had already been regularised pursuant to earlier judgments of the High Court.The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had not directed regularisation merely on the basis of the respondent's long continuance in service, but because he stood on the same factual footing as employees who had already been granted the benefit. Highlighting the principle of parity, the Bench held:“Once similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of regularization pursuant to judicial orders which have attained finality and have been implemented by the appellant, respondent no. 1 cannot be denied the same benefit in the absence of any intelligible differentia. To hold otherwise would amount to permitting unequal treatment amongst equals, which is impermissible in law.”Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's reasoning, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.Case Title: State of Bihar v. Ugrasen Jha and Ors.Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1154 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9047 of 2016Appearance: Mr. Ravi Kumar for the Appellant. Ms. Anju Jha for the Private Respondent. Mr. Nadim Seraj and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi for the University.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Similarly Situated Employees Already Regularised Cannot Be Denied Same Benefit Without Intelligible Differentia: Patna High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Similarly Situated Employees Already Regularised Cannot Be Denied Same Benefit Without Intelligible Differentia: Patna High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers