Ram Phal v. Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural

Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On 9.10.1972, the petitioner joined as a Clerk with the Karnal Primary Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited, Karnal on temporary basis. It is not disputed that services of the petitioner are governed by the Staff Service Rules of the Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited. It is stated that services of the petitioner, which were purely on temporary basis were extended from time to time and he was made regular employee of the Bank on 27.7.1974. It is stated that five employees working with the respondent-Bank, namely, Prahlad Singh, Keshav Chander, Hoshiar Singh, Satinder Kumar and Jagdish Parshad have been granted the benefit of ad hoc service and the same has been counted CWP No.8025 of 2004 [2] towards seniority and promotion. It is pleaded that the above said five persons were appointed along with the petitioner and they participated in the same selection process. Furthermore Prahlad Singh, Jagdish Parshad and Keshav Chander co-employees of the petitioner were granted the benefit of ad hoc service towards counting of seniority and promotion, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15979 of 1991, titled as, `Prahlad Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others', decided on 1.9.1993. It is also case of the petitioner that Special Leave Petition was filed against the judgment rendered in Prahlad Singh's case (supra) and the same was dismissed on 29.1.1996. The fact that co-employees of the petitioner, who were similarly situated, have been granted the benefit of ad hoc service in view of the judgment rendered in Prahlad Singh's case (supra) has not been denied by counsel for the respondent-Bank. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is, can one employee be treated differently, even though he was appointed as a result of the same selection. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) S.C.T. 354 to contend that when the judgment has attained finality, the State is bound to grant the relief to its employees who are similarly situated. In support of his contention, counsel has relied upon paras 10, 11, 12 and 19 of the judgment which read as under:-

10. Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India make the judgment of the Apex Court binding on all courts. All authorities including the State must implement the orders effectively in comety to the law of the land. The constitutional mandate imposes an obligation on the State to ensure enforceability throughout the boundary of India of the orders CWP No.8025 of 2004 [3] passed by the Apex Court. Attempts to by-pass and circumvent the orders of the Court could never achieve any object of the State. On the contrary, it would certainly introduce an element of discontement and frustration in its employees. In a large society like ours, the steps taken on behalf of the State to eliminate unnecessary litigation is essence of proper administration. The maxim boni judics est causas litium dirimere even requires the Court to remove causes of litigation. Such maxim is indented to further the principle of precedents and is essential to maintain consistency in judicial pronouncements. The command in judgments which attain finality must not only appears to be respected, but should be enforced and implemented with respect as `lex nil frustra jubet'.

11. State has pervasive obligations to discharge in relation to maintaining its expected standards of employer-employee relationship. As already noticed, one of the important facets of such obligations is to be reasonable and fair in granting service benefit to its employees in accordance with service rules and the principles enunciated on pronouncement of judgments by the Courts. When judgments attain finality to which the State is a party, duty is casted upon the State to grant relief to its employees who are similarly situated and on identical facts. Benefit of such approach are many and it causes no disadvantage to the interests of the State. It is not necessary for the State to require each one of its employees to approach the Courts of law for grant of a relief which the State ought to grant to the employees in normal course of its administration, particularly, the cases of the kind afore- referred. Such principles is well known and accepted for years now. By referring to few judgments we would only predicate the principle with greater emphasis of its application in the day-to-day affairs of the State. In the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Kumari v. Union of India and others, JT 1994(7) SC 565 : 1995(1) SCT 527 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as CWP No.8025 of 2004 [4] under :- "The allotment of seats should go according to merit. It does not depend upon who comes to Court and who does not. The matter is one of principle and should not depend upon who comes to the court. A more deserving candidate may not have the means of approach the Court."

12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyapal Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and another, 1999 (2) RSJ 377 also observed as under:- "The respondents as a welfare State should rather see to it that the litigation in the Courts is minimised. After this Court or the Apex court lays down the law, it should see to it that similarly situated persons automatically get the same relief without resorting to litigation." 13 to 18.

19. Be that as it may, particularly in the afore-referred premises, we still feel that it is the bounden duty of the Court to issue the following directions to the State in the larger public interest and for proper administration of justice :- (i) Wherever the rights of the parties have been settled by a judgment of the Court, the State has taken all remedies available to it in law against that judgment even upto the highest court of the land and the judgments has attained finality, then the State must accept the judgment and implement it in its true spirit and command. There is implicit obligation on the part or the State to grant same relief to other members of the cadre whose claim was based upon identical facts and points of law. (ii) The State Government shall as expeditiously as possible in any case not later than four months re-act and respond to a legal notice/representation served upon it by any of its employees in redressal of his grievance/grant of relief, which has been granted to his co-employees similarly situated, in furtherance to the judgment of the Court. Unless, for reasons to be CWP No.8025 of 2004 [5] indicated in the reply, the State feels compelled to deny such relief. Needless to point out that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the orders of the Court. (iii) In the event such an employee is compelled to approach the court of law, whereupon the court awards interest and/or costs while allowing such a petition, then the expenditure incurred by the State including the costs/interest paid in furtherance to the orders of the Court should be recovered from the erring officer(s). (iv) The concerned quarters of the Government are expected to work out the details in furtherance to the above directions and issue pervasive but definite instructions to all its departments forthwith to ensure compliance.” In view of the fact that similarly situated co-employees of the petitioner have been granted the benefit of ad hoc service towards counting of seniority and promotion, this Court is of the view that petitioner cannot be denied the same relief and the respondents are bound to follow the ratio of aforesaid law. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in Prahlad Singh's case (supra). November 10, 2010. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) JUDGE RC