The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1601 of 2017 --------- 1. Pramila Kumari, W/o Anil Kumar, R/o Girls Middle School, Pandarpala , P.O. B Polytechnic, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad 2. Kumari Suman, W/o Prakash Chandra Jha, R/o Boys Middle School, Karkendra, P.O. & P.S. Karkendra, District Dhanbad 3. Usha Devi, W/o Ram Naresh Pandey , PurviTundi, P.O. 4. & P.S. Tundi, District Dhanbad Sambhu Nath Mishra, S/o Late Nageshwar Mishra, R/o Primary School, Kurmidih, Govindpur 2, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad Petitioners ... -Versus- The State of Jharkhand 1. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand , MDI Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 3. The Director, Primary Education , Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad, 4. P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD For the Petitioners For the Respondents --------- : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mithesh Singh, GA IV : Mr. Anuj Burman,A.C. to G.A-IV --------- C.A.V. JUDGEMENT Pronounced on 14.11.2024 This instant Writ Application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction (s) or a writ particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the order passed in memo No. 3880 dated 1 03.11.2016 ( i.e. Annexure -10) passed by respondent no. 4 whereby the payment of arrear of salary has been denied to the petitioners and direction upon the Respondents to make thepayment of arrear of salary of the petitioner for the period from 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003. Further the petitioners pray for issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ particularly in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to grant consequential benefit like promotion, pay revision etc. to the petitioners after they get regularization of services and vide the order dated 24.11.2015 the services of the petitioners got regularized but no consequential relief has been extended to the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the Respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the District Superintendent of Education (i.e. Respondent No. 4) is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that all the petitioners were appointed in the year 1996 as the Assistant Teachers in their respective Schools. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 was appointed on 29.10.1996, petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 29.10.1996, petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 14.11.1996 and the petitioner no. 4 was appointed on 02.12.1996. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed initially as Assistant Teacher at Middle School, Hirapur, Dhanbad and after reinstatement at present she is working at Girls Middle School, Pandarpala, Dhanbad. Similarly the petitioner no. 2 is 2 currently working at Boys Middle School, Karkendra, Dhanbad, the Petitioner No. 3 is presently working at Up Graded Middle School, Jamdiha, East Tundi, Dhanbad and the petitioner No. 4 is presently working at Primary School, Kurmidih, Govindpur 2, Dhanbad . 4. It is submitted that the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4 is illegal and has been passed without taking into consideration that the petitioners were not allowed to work for the alleged period from 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003 without issuance of any show cause to this effect the services of the petitioners were terminated and they had been refrained from doing their duty. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for their promotion after being regularized and they are also entitled for all the pay revisions and arrear of salary and also the consequential benefit with would have accrued to them had they been not terminated. It is submitted that the Respondent Authorities are bound to consider that the recommendation has already been made. It is submitted that the Respondent are liable to make payment of arrears of salary for the period in question without there being any fault on their part and hence this Writ Petition application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Respondent No.4 is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that from supplementary counter affidavit dated 10.04.2019 by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 it has been clarified that the matter was placed for consideration before the District Education Establishment Committee and the 3 services of the petitioners were regularized by granting extra ordinary leave with pay vide order dated 03.11.2016. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners have placed their in view of on the orders passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 277 of 2017 ( Kalpana Mandal and Ors V. State of Jharkhand) in which a settlement was reached between the Respondents’ State (through Block Education Extension Officer authorized by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad) and the Petitioners in the above mentioned Letters Patent Appeal, wherein it has been agreed that the respondents will pay the arrears of salary to the Petitioners. It is submitted that the settlement was reached between nine person who were the petitioners in the aforesaid mentioned Letters Patent Appeal and the petitioners of the instant case were not the parties to the settlement and hence the settlement is not binding upon the Respondents in terms of the Petitioners of the instant case. It is submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above the claims of the petitioner(s) have been rightly rejected and the prayer for quashing the memo bearing No. 3880 dated 3rd of November 2016 is not maintainable in the eyes of the law. It is submitted that from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the claims of the petitioner(s) for the payment of the arrear of salary from the 30th of March 2000 to the 27th of November 2003 is not maintainable and hence this Writ Petition may be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the judgment reported inVikasSankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, reported in(2017) 1 SCC 350 at page 385 at para 81 . 4 8. Perused the record of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It transpires from the record that during pendency of this Writ Petition the petitioner No. 3 Ram Naresh Pandey had died on 14.03.2021 leaving behind his wife Usha Devi who has been substituted vide order dated 28.02.2022as legal heirs (petitioner No. 3 ) by the Co-ordinate Bench ( Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak) of this Court. 10. It appears that the services of the petitioners had earlier been terminated on 30.03.2000 and then the petitioners and other similarly situated persons moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing writ applications bearing CWJC No. 801 of 2000 (R) along with analogous cases. The said writ application was allowed vide
Decision
order dated 17.10.2000.Photocopy of the order dated 17.10.2000 passed in CWJC No. 801/2000R is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- 1 with this Writ petition. Although the respondent State had filed an appeal bearing LPA No.191/2001 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2003. Photocopy of the order dated 03.03.03 passed in LPA No. 191/2001 is enclosed as Annexure 2. 11. It appears that after the order was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioners re-joined their services vide order dated 22.11.2003 (i.e. Annexure 3) with a rider clause, clause 5 that the period, when they were out of service, that will be regularized, and arrears of salary will be paid subject to outcome of the SLP pending before the 5 Hon'ble Apex Court and they had been posted in different schools. 12. It transpires that the State had preferred SLP (Civil) no. 9127-9133 of 2003 and which was admitted on 29.08.2003 and thereafter that case was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6924-6930 of 2003 and the same i.e. SLP (Civil) no. 9127-9133 of 2003 (Civil Appeal No. 6924-6930 of 2003) were dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Photocopy of the order dated 19.11.2009 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is enclosed as Annexure 4. 13. It appears that vide letter dated 13.08.2010 (i.e. Annexure -5) the Respondent no. 4 i.e. DSE, Dhanbad had written to the Director, Primary Education stating therein that the Civil Appeal No. 6924- 6930 of 2003 was dismissed on 19.11.2009 by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the teachers are praying for regularization and arrears of salary for the period 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003 and requested for guidelines to that effect . 14. It appears that on 21.12.2011 ( i.e. Annexure -6) , Assistant Director, Primary Education wrote letter to DSE, Dhanbad stating that the District Education Establishment Committee is competent to take discussion for disposing of the matters of the Primary Teachers . 15. It appears that the petitioners made several representations on several occasions and lastly on 12.05.2015 and 27.06.2015 ( i.e. Annexure -7 series) for consideration of their cases but no action was taken. 6 16. Thereafter the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No. 4119 of 2015 for a direction to the Respondents to regularize their services for the period 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003 during the period they were out of service . 17. It appears that during the pendency of the writ application bearing W.P.(S) No. 4119/2015 the respondent authorities had filed their counter affidavit wherein they had stated on the record that by order dated 24.11.2015 (i.e. Annexure -8) they have regularized the services of the petitioners. 18. It further transpires that the respondents have filed the supplementary counter affidavit and Para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 27.01.2024 read as follows:- “Para -4 -That in reply to the statement made in Para -3 to the Supplementary affidavit field by the petitioners , it is stated that they were re-appointed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 801 of 2000 (R) Pramila Kumari-Vrs-State and the order of the Director, Primary education, Jharkhand , Ranchi vide memo No. 2998 dated 22.11.2023 ( Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) with condition that salary to the petitioners for the period between the date of termination and rejoining shall be decided after the final disposal of S.L.P. No. 9127-9133/2003.” 19. It transpires that the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhayay) of this Court had dismissed W.P.(S) No. 4119 of 2015 which was disposed of on 08.02.2016 with the observation as follows:- 7 “The facts, which appears from the pleadings of the writ petition are that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1996 as Assistant Teachers in their respective Schools. Subsequently, their services were terminated on 30.03.2000 and being aggrieved by their termination a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 801 of 2000(R) along with other analogous writ petitions were filed, which were allowed vide order dated 17.10.2000. Against the said order dated 17.10.2000 passed in the writ petitions, the respondents-State filed an appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 191 of 2001 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2003. Pursuant to the dismissal of appeal, the petitioners have joined the services in terms of the order dated 22.11.2003, in which at clause 5, it was mentioned that the question of regularization for the period during which they were out of service would depend upon the result of the S.L.P. pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 9624-6930 of 2003. The said S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.11.2009. From the counter affidavit , which has been filed by the respondents, it appears that the services of petitioners from 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003 have already been regularized and , in fact, a request was made by the Assistant Director on 21.12.2011to the District Education Establishment Committee, which is the competent authority, to decide on the question of payment of arrears of salary as the issue is still open for consideration before the respondents. In view of the stand, which has been taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.4 to 8 take a decision on the claim of the petitioners with respect to the payment of arrears of salary from the period 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.” 20. It transpires that after considering the materials on record the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay) of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2016, had disposed of the writ with the direction to the Respondent no. 4 i.e. District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad to take decision on the claims of the petitioners with respect to the payment of arrears of salary for the period 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003. 21. The Co-ordinate Bench has further noticed that the services of the petitioners had been regularized from 30.03.2003 to 27.11.2003 vide Extra Ordinary Leave in the light of counter affidavit filed by State. 22. It appears that petitioners had submitted their representation with the copy of the order passed by this High Court but no decision was taken in time. 23. Then the petitioners moved an application of contempt before this High Court vide Contempt Case (Civil) No. 888/2016 wherein the Respondent Authority filed their show cause enclosing the decision taken by them, in terms of the order passed by this Court. 24. Thereafter, after disposal of the contempt case No. 888 of 2016, the impugned order dated 03.11.2016 has been passed. 9 25. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment reported in R.Muthukumar and Others Vs. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 151 at paragraph 11,24,28 29 and 30. 26. However, judgment reported in R.Muthukumar and Others Vs. Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 151 is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case as it is passed in different context and as such this Court finds that above judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the fact and in the circumstances of this case. 27. It transpires that although the matter was also referred to JHALSA for Mediation vide order dated 22.01.2021 but the Mediator Mrs. Arpana Verma, JHALSA vide report dated 18.03.2021 had informed to this Court that disputes the parties could not be settled as both the parties could not come to any final conclusion. 28. It transpires that the petitioners were re-appointed vide order dated 22.11.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in the light of order dated 17.10.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 801 of 2000 (R ) and other analogous cases . 29. Therefore, it is evident once the State has admitted that the petitioners have been regularized in their services for the period 30.03.2003 to 27.11.2003, then they were entitled to all consequential benefit like arrears of salary, promotion, pay revision etc. 10 30. It is further evident that the services of the petitioners were regularized by the Respondent No.4 vide order dated 24.11.2015 (i.e. Annexure -8). 31. It transpires that S.L.P. No. 9624 -6930 of 2003 was dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court on 19.11.2009 of this writ petition. 32. It further reveals from the order dated 22.11.2003 that the petitioners were re-appointed in the light of order dated 17.10.2000 passed in C.W. J.C No. 801 of 2000 (R )and C.W. J.C No. 826 of 2000(R ) and C.W. J.C No. 770 of 2000(R ) and C.W. J.C No. 964 of 2000(R ) and C.W. J.C No. 948 of 2000(R ) and C.W. J.C No. 1047 of 2000(R ) and C.W. J.C No. 1042 of 2000 (R ) and M.J.C. No. 36 of 2001 with the condition that appointment will be subject to be result of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9127 -9133/2003. 33. From perusal of Annexure -5, which is letter dated 12.08.2010 /13.08.2010 send by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad to the Director Primary Education , Jharkhand, Ranchi , it is clear that salary of the writ petitioners was to be decided after disposal of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9127 - 9133/2003 and said S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9127 -9133/2003 was also dismissed on 19.11.2009. 34. It was also mentioned in the said Annexure-5 that even S.L.P. No. 6924-6930 of 2003 was also dismissed on 19.11.20009 and hence the petitioners had prayed for payment of arrears of salary for the period of 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003. 35. It appears that S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9127 -9133 of 2003 was admitted on 29.08.2003 and it was converted into Civil Appeal No. 6924-6930 of 2003 but the same was dismissed on 11 19.11.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and none of the counsel on behalf of the State of Jharkhand had appeared . Thus the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court attained its finality. 36. Once the Department had admitted that payment of arrears of salary will be decided of the petitioners after outcome of S.L.P. No. 9127 -9133 of 2003 then after dismissal of said S.L.P. No. 9127 -9133 of 2003 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.11.09 , there was no reason to deny the benefits of salary for the said period to the writ petitioners and also in view of the fact particularly the department itself admitted in their counter affidavit at paragraph -8 that the services of the petitioners have been regularized for the period 30.03.2000 to 27.11.2003 by granting them extra ordinary leave. 37. It is evident that the petitioners were terminated illegally for none of their fault which was noticed passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court ( Hon’ble Justice M.Y. Eqbal as then his Lordship was ) on 07.10.2000 . 38. Although one of the Co-ordinate Bench ( Honble Mr. Justice S. Chandrashekhar) vide order dated 04.02.2017 in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2016 had observed that in the case of regularization of the services of those Writ Petitioners by grant of Extra Ordinary Leave, arrears of pay and another salary /payment will not be admissible. However, some of the similarly situated persons had filed L.P.A. No. 227 of 2019 by challenging the order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2016 and 12 the State had agreed to pay the same to those Writ Petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2016. 39. It is evident that the petitioners are similarly situated to those persons who had filed W.P.(S.) No. 964 of 2016 which was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Chandrasekhar) of this Court. Thereafter, the said similarly persons had filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 277 of 2017 (Kalpana Mandal and Ors V. State of Jharkhand) and which was allowed on 24.07.2018 (Supplementary affidavit dated 19.09.2023 Annexure-1) on the basis of compromise. 40. Para 2 to 6 of order dated 24.07.2018 passed in LPA No. 277 of 2017 read as follows:- “Para 2:- This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners, whose W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2016 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 4th February, 2017.” “Para 3:- This Court has sent this matter for mediation as there were chances of settlement of the dispute between the parties vide order dated 19th February, 2018. Both the parties had attained the mediation proceedings and now the Mediator has given report dated 11th May, 2018 and the matter has been settled between the parties to this litigation. The main terms and conditions of the settlement are as under: “Both joined and separate session with the parties were held and they have mutually arrived at amicable settlement as under: 1. That the Respondent state (Jairam Prasad B.E.E.O. authorized by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad to represent this case) has agreed to pay the salary of the aggrieved appellants in L.P.A. No. 277/2017 from 30.03.2000, i.e. the date of termination to 22.11.03, i.e. the date of reinstatement. 2. That the arrears of the salary would be paid without any interest within period of two months. 3. That, if the payment of salary is further delayed, then an interest @ of 6% annum would be added upon the salary.” 13 4. That, if any party breaches the condition of above mediation the other party is free to approach the Hon’ble Court. That the above settlements have been arrived between the parties at their sweet-will and without any undue-influence. Under the above circumstances, the disputes of the parties have been settled. Thus, the Mediation is successful. You are therefore requested to be kind enough to place this report before the Hon’ble Court. This settlement is also signed by the Petitioners and Respondents.” “Para 4:- The aforesaid settlement has been arrived at between the parties and there is signature of both the parties to the litigation as well as there is signature of Mediator, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.” “Para 5:- In view of the aforesaid terms, which are at serial no. 1, 2 and 3, this Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. To that extent, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 964 of 2016, judgment and order dated 4th February, 2017 is modified.” “Para 6:- This Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. 41. Learned counsel for the State had failed to point out during the course of submission as to whether any action was taken against the Block Development Education Officer for entering into compromised in JHALSA without obtaining the permission from the department . 42. This Court finds that the compromise had taken place in JHALSA before the Mediator appointed from the office of the JHALSA and thus it cannot be said that the compromise entered between those persons filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 277 of 2017 ( Kalpana Mandal and Ors V. State of Jharkhand) is not binding upon the State. 43 . The State could have filed any document to show that it had proceeded against said Block Extension Education Officer by filing the counter affidavit and they could have taken steps for recall /review of order dated 24.07.2018 Letters 14 Patent Appeal No. 277 of 2017 ( Kalpana Mandal and Ors V. State of Jharkhand) but they had failed to do so. 44. It has been held in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Vs. Ram Charan reported in (2006) Vol. 5 Supreme Court Cases 272 at paragraph 12 and 13 as follows:- “Para12:- The learned Judges of the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of laches in approaching the High Court by 321 days. However, the High Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no merit therein. A perusal of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, goes to show that there is absolutely no discussion about the merit of the rival contentions made by the parties. The Division Bench, in our view, is not justified in dismissing the appeal on merit without having discussed the merits of the rival claims. The order passed by the Division Bench, in our view, is not sustainable as it is not a speaking order. The High Court also dismissed the appeal by holding that the Labour Court was right in directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with 25% back wages, without even adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal challenging the said direction. Likewise, the Division Bench is also not correct in affirming the presumption made by the Labour Court regarding 240 days of service rendered by the respondent, without adverting to the material placed before it by the parties.” “Para 13:- On 11-10-2004, this Court after issuing notice to the respondent, stayed the operation of the award until further orders. On 13-12-2004, this Court while granting leave, passed a further order by way of modification of its order dated 11-10-2004, and directed that the appellant may reinstate the respondent but the recovery of back wages pursuant to the impugned award shall remain stayed during the hearing of the appeal. Since the order of the Division Bench is not a speaking one, we set aside the same and remit the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh disposal and passing a speaking order after hearing the respective parties. We, therefore, restore DB Special Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2004 to the file of the High Court and request the Division Bench to dispose of the same afresh on merit and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by us in this judgment.” 45. It is well settled that the similarly situated person cannot be denied the same reliefs if the persons similarly situated have been granted certain similar relief. 15 46. It has been held in Om Prakash Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 771 at paragraph 27 and 28 as follows:- “Para 27:- The facts of U.P. SEB (supra) are similar to the case at hand. The relevant portion of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder: “3. By means of the writ petition, 34 petitioners who were daily wage employees of the Cooperative Electric Supply Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) had prayed for regularisation of their services in the U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Electricity Board”). It appears that the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board on 3-4-1997. A copy of the minutes of the proceeding dated 3-4-1997 is Annexure P-2 to this appeal. That proceeding was presided over by the Minister of Cooperatives, U.P. Government and there were a large number of senior officers of the State Government present in the proceeding. In the said proceeding, it was mentioned that the daily wage employees of the Society who are being taken over by the Board will start working in the Electricity Board “in the same manner and position”. 4. Pursuant to the said proceeding, the respondents herein were absorbed in the service of the Electricity Board. 5. Earlier, the Electricity Board had taken a decision on 28-11-1996 to regularise the services of its employees working on daily-wage basis from before 4-5-1990 on the existing vacant posts and that an examination for selection would be held for that purpose. 6. The contention of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) was that since the Society had been taken over by the Electricity Board, the decision dated 28-11-1996 taken by the Electricity Board with regard to its daily wage employees will also be applicable to the employees of the Society who were working from before 4-5-1990 and whose services stood transferred to the Electricity Board and who were working with the Electricity Board on daily-wage basis. 7. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 21-9-1998 held that there was no ground for discriminating between two sets of employees who are daily wagers, namely, (i) the original employees of the Electricity Board, and (ii) the employees of the Society, who subsequently became the employees of the Electricity Board when the Society was taken over by the Electricity Board. This view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. 8. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge. 9. The writ petitioners who were daily wagers in the service of the Society were appointed in the Society before 4-5-1990 and their services were taken over by the Electricity Board “in the same manner and position”. In our opinion, this would mean that their services in the Society cannot be ignored for considering them for the benefit of the order dated 28-11-1996. 16 …….. 19. In the present case many of the writ petitioners have been working from 1985 i.e. they have put in about 22 years' service and it will surely not be reasonable if their claim for regularisation is denied even after such a long period of service. Hence apart from discrimination, Article 14 of the Constitution will also be violated on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness if employees who have put in such a long service are denied the benefit of regularisation and are made to face the same selection which fresh recruits have to face.” “Para 28 :- The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the Appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees have been granted the said benefit.” 47. It appears that the petitioners have been harassed and they have been compelled to move before this Court time and again for redressal of their grievances . 48. As, the petitioners have been reinstated in their service on merit and as such they will be entitled to all consequential benefit. 49. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 03.11.2016 4 (i.e. Annexure-10) passed by the Respondent No. is illegal and liable to be set-aside as the same has been passed without discussion the case of the petitioners on merit. 50. Thus, this W.P. (S) No. 1601 of 2017 is allowed. Bibha/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 17 18