Denying Regularization From Correct Date By Making Distinction Based On Initial Nature Of Work Arbitrary, Violates Art. 14, 16: Rajasthan HC

The Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court quashed the State government's order, which did not regularize a man on the ground that his initial work on daily wages was different from his counterparts, terming the consideration as “irrelevant” and the actions of the State as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16.Justice Arun Monga said, “The principle of equity warrants equal treatment for employees in comparable situations. However, the respondents appointed the petitioner as LDC effective from 16.01.1992, creating an arbitrary distinction without reasonable justification. This action amounts to hostile discrimination. Notably, the respondents admitted that counterparts were regularized under the same notification. Their argument that the petitioner's initial work on daily wages differs is irrelevant once the conditions for regularization were fulfilled. Denying regularization from the correct date infringes on the petitioner's rights to equal pay for equal work and protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in employment”.The court was hearing a man's plea who was initially appointed on daily wages as a typist in the office of Executive Engineer, PHED, District-II, Jodhpur in 1982. Pursuant to a notification in 1989, in 2003 he filed a writ petition for his regularization on the post from 1989 which was allowed.This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the State before all the applicable forums and ultimately, by an order in 2005, petitioner was regularized from the year 1992. This was challenged by the petitioner before the high court. It was the case of the petitioner that his counterparts were regularized effective from 1989, however he was denied the same benefit without any justification, despite him fulfilling all the conditions for such regularization. On the contrary, the State argued that the counterparts referred to by the petitioner were initially appointed as daily wage typists through the employment exchange, however, the petitioner was not engaged for same nature of work. Hence, no parity could be claimed by him. After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that the petitioner was denied the same benefit as that of his counterparts “for the mere sake of it”. It was held that the petitioner was entitled to equal treatment under the 1989 notification and denying it violates his fundamental rights. Furthermore, the Court also observed that regularization of the petitioner from the year 1989 had been ordered by the Court by allowing petitioner's earlier writ petition in 2003, and failing to implement the same by the State amounted to undermining administrative propriety. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the State was directed to consider petitioner's case on parity with his counterparts within two months. Title: Abdul Hamid v State of Rajasthan & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 25Click Here To Read/Download Order

Denying Regularization From Correct Date By Making Distinction Based On Initial Nature Of Work Arbitrary, Violates Art. 14, 16: Rajasthan HC

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

Denying Regularization From Correct Date By Making Distinction Based On Initial Nature Of Work Arbitrary, Violates Art. 14, 16: Rajasthan HC

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers