Krishan Datt & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana -- RANJIT SINGH J This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 17290, 17291, 5156 of 1995, 19663 and 19650 of 1996 as common question of fact and law arise in these cases. The facts have been taken from CWP No.17290 of 1995. The petitioners in this case and the connected cases have filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari/mandamus for issuance direction to State to absorb them in the regular service of the department as per policy (Annexure P-5) which provides for Sanitary Supervisors/Swasthya Sahayaks and for prohibiting the respondents to fill up these posts through Selection Board. In addition a prayer is also made to challenge the policy as unconstitutional and for quashing the same and also for directing the respondents to absorb them in a regular service in terms of the policy. It is seen that prayer is for quashing part of the policy and also for regularizing the services and for absorption on the basis of the same policy, which is put to challenge otherwise. Civil Writ Petition No.17290 of 1995(O&M) -2- The petitioners were employed as Sanitary Supervisors/Swasthya Sahayaks in Health Department for implementing the Malaria Eradication Scheme of the Central Government. The main functions of the petitioners are to perform the duty of spray of Anti-malaria medicine and other connected duties. The petitioners have been working on their posts from time to time for the last many years. They have been employed in Summer seasons. As per the petitioners they were employed in the department and have rendered service for years. Details of the service so rendered which has been tabulated in para 3 of the petition in respect of each petitioner. The petitioners were statedly employed through Employment Exchange. Reference is then made to some of the writ petitions which were filed before this Court which were disposed of by observing that since the policy has already been framed and so no occasion would arise for granting any relief to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made reference to the policy which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. As per this, the Civil Surgeons have been directed to carry out the spray operation of the Malaria scheme and following guidelines have been issued while employing people for the said purpose:- i) ii) Spray staff (sanitary supervisors/Swastha Sahayak will be appointed through Employment Exchange on the basis of experience of Spray work taking 1988 as the base line. A Joint seniority list of Sanitary Supervisors/Swasth Sahayaks of Spray operation will be prepared. Their seniority will be determined on the basis of their initial appointment. Their length of service would be counted in the manner that if the workers even has been employed for four and half months in a year and has worked every year for the said period with break. If the initial date of appointment of some workers is the same then inter-se-seniority will be the year 1988. Civil Writ Petition No.17290 of 1995(O&M) -3- iii) iv) The workers who are presently employed in the district through Employment Exchange for 4½ months for spray work be accommodated for whole year if the vacancy of regular Swasth Sahayak/Field workers falls vacant during the spray season. In case the vacancy occurs in the off-season this may be filled through the Employment Exchange out of the Swastha Sahayaks on the basis of seniority-cum- suitability. All rules already in force regarding recruitment are to be followed in this case also. In case services of some employees are required to be terminated before the completion of spray operation due to some reasons the principle of last come first go shall be followed.” Counsel has also referred to clause 2 above which requires preparation of joint seniority list, sanitary supervisors for spray operation and their seniority will be taken into account on the basis of their initial appointment. It is further mentioned that their length of service would be counted in a manner that if the workers even had been employed for 4½ months in a year with break for said period and if their initial date of appointment is same their interse seniority year will be 1988. The writ petitions were admitted and have now come up for hearing. In the reply filed, the making of the policy is not disputed. It is also stated that respondents have prepared a regular scheme. The validity of the scheme prepared by the State, is said to have been upheld by this Court. On the other hand State of Punjab has also filed reply in some of the petitions pertaining to the said State. The reference is made to provisions relating to mode and the manner of recruitment. It is also pointed out that the petitioners were employed as superior field workers on contract basis for short period for spray in rural areas of District Ferozepur. Accordingly, both the States would contest the rights of the petitioner now to seek regularization. Civil Writ Petition No.17290 of 1995(O&M) -4- Either because of legal position in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi, 2006(4) SCC 1 or otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a restricted prayer while arguing the writ petitions, that he would be satisfied in case directions are issued to the States to adhere to the policy instructions and maintain seniority list of those employed so that the petitioners are employed on that basis of the seniority so maintained. If the petitioners have continued to remain in the engagement though on seasonal basis, that plea as projected may be a requirement under law. If the petitioners have continued to remain as a seasonal worker, the law would also require the State to maintain the seniority list once the workers are relieved as they have to be offered re-employment in terms of the seniority so maintained. There is no pleading in the writ petitions that this process or the policy has not been followed. In this view of the matter I do not consider it appropriate to issue any direction in this regard to the State. The petitioner, if so advised, may file a representation if they are still in service which shall be considered by the State. It is expected for the State to adhere to the provisions of law by maintaining seniority of the workers so employed even on seasonal basis for their re-employment in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. November 12, 2010 p.singh (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE