The High Court
Case Details
CWP-6519- (cid:1) -2017(cid:1) -1- UNJAB & HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH GARH CHANDIGARH 212 Paramjit Sing it Singh and others CWP-6519-2017 (O&M) CWP Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Date o ...Petitioners State of Punja f Punjab and another Versus ...Respondents CORAM: H M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, Advoca dvocate, for the petitioners.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, P AG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Prayer made in the present petit tition is for quashing the order dated 27.01.2 7.01.2017 (Annexure P-1), qua the pe the petitioners, whereby they have been treated eated as fresh incumbents, resulting i lting in the denial of their rightful entitlements ents and discriminatory treatment a ment as against similarly situated employees. 2. The Village Development and nt and Panchayat Department in 2001 advertis dvertised 51 positions, later expanding anding them to 108 in the reserved category for ry for physically challenged individua ividuals. The petitioners, all with a disability of ity of 40% or more, applied for the r these roles. Petitioner No. 1 was selected as a d as a Veterinary Pharmacist, while P hile Petitioners No. 2 and 3 were hired as Peo as Peons. However, on 02.08.2002, 2002, they, along with 105 other employees, w ees, were terminated without being being issued a show cause notice, which was c was contested by filing CWP-1378 13783-2002 and the same was PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1) -2- -2017(cid:1) CWP-6519- (cid:1) allowed by d by the Division Bench vide orde e order dated 15.03.2004, with a direction to on to reinstate them, but liberty wa rty was granted to the competent authority to ity to take fresh action. This was ag was again made subject matter of CWP-13747 3747-2010, decided on 26.08.2011, .2011, vide which the competent authority was ity was directed to constitute a medica edical board for fresh examination of petitioner itioner No. 1 and in case, he was was found to be suffering from permanent di ent disability on the cut-off date pres te prescribed for submission of the application f tion form, his claim was to be con e considered sympathetically and Petitioner No ner No. 2 was allowed the liberty to es y to establish his eligibility in terms of the Gov Government Policy before the C the Competent Authority, while petitioner No ner No. 3 was given an appointment tment letter before the matter was heard. Relev Relevant paras of the order passed o ssed on 26.08.2011 are reproduced below: PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1) d the irregularities noticed by irr “19) The so-called not render the selection process respondents would not r , extraneous considerations or vitiated by fraud, ext e mandate contained in Articles 14 inconsistent with the man titution. The irregularities noticed & 16 of the Constitution o the root of the matter and were above do not go to the oked being trivial in nature. The liable to be overlooked itioner (s) belonging to a 'special' services of the petitioner e Authorities need to have special class for whom the Auth not to have been terminated on compassion, ought not t these small 'pretexts' (20) For the reasons afor allowed and the order da (Annexure P2 ) is hereby (s) are ordered to be re consequential benefits. s afore-stated, the writ petition is der dated 25.02. 2010/04.03. 2010 hereby quashed and the petitioner be re-instated in service with all CWP No. 13747 Of 2010 f 2010 (0&M) The petitioner, in this cas the certificate of perman private doctor. Counsel fo subsequently a certificat is case, is said to have relied upon permanent disability' issued by a nsel for the petitioner submits that rtificate duly issued by the Civil CWP-6519- (cid:1) -2017(cid:1) -3- Surgeon was submitted w it may, this writ petition is that the competent author to a fresh examination be it is satisfied that the p suffering from a permane date prescribed for submis claim of c shall consider sympathetically in the lig hereinabove.
Decision
tted with the Authorities. Be that as ition is disposed of with a direction authority may subject the petitioner ion before a Medical Board, and if the petitioner had actually been ermanent disability on the cut- off submission of the application form, the the petitioner the the light of the observations made CWP No. 13747 of 2010 i 2010 is accordingly disposed of. CWP No. 14726 of 2010 ( 2010 (0&M) At the outset, learned Sta nature of permanent disa the writ- petitioners has be and as such they are not e reservation meant for ph The writ petition is acco with, liberty to the pe eligibility in terms of the the competent authority, if ed State counsel points out that the nt disability allegedly suffered by has been assessed to less than 40% e not entitled to claim the benefit of for physically-challenged persons. s accordingly dismissed, however, he petitioners to establish their of the Government Policy before rity, if so advised. With liberty afore-stated stands dismissed.” stated, CWP No. 14726 of 2010 3. In deference to the aforesaid resaid, and as acknowledged in paragraphs 2 aphs 2, 3, and 4 of the written stateme tatement, the petitioners and others were issued issued appointment letters albeit afre afresh, leading to filing of CWP-20584 0584-2015, which came to be dispose isposed of on 28.02.2017, relevant paras whereo hereof read thus: “Notice of motion was i the course of proceedings Rural Development and P filed in Court. A perusal reveal that fresh orders ha the appointment letters i read as “It is also clarifie is being given to you afr and connection with an Therefore, any arrear/seni was issued and eventually during edings, an affidavit of the Director, t and Panchayats, Punjab has been erusal of the said affidavit would ers have been passed and Para-4 of tters issued on 20.10.2011 which larified that this appointment letter ou afresh and this has no concern ith any previous service period. ar/seniority claim of the any period PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1) CWP-6519- (cid:1) -2017(cid:1) -4- will not be made by you again reinstated into s removing you from the present existing rules/in benefits will be payable removing you from the into service”, may be read y you” in place thereof, “ you are into services from the date of the services. According to the ules/instructions, the appropriate ayable to you from the date of the service, up to again joining e read over. In view of the fact tha reinstate them in service f removed as per the affi decided that appropriate from date of removing u writ petition is rendered twelve petitioners. Three been given the relief as liberty to challenge the which relief has been deni ct that the State has decided to rvice from the date when they were e affidavit filed and it has been priate benefits would be payable ving upto the date of joining, this dered infructuous qua nine of the Three petitioners, who have not ief as sought by them, are given e the order dated 27.01.2017 by n denied. However, while disposin made clear that the con benefits would be release period of three months fro order. isposing of this writ petition, it is e consequential relief/appropriate released to the petitioners within a ths from the date of passing of this With the above directio stands allowed, according irection, the instant writ petition ordingly. No order as to costs.” 4. The petitioners are here to cha to challenge the said order dated 27.01.2017 w 017 which noticeably does not reveal reveal any reason for giving effect to their appo r appointments on fresh basis, whic , which is even otherwise, flawed inasmuch as, ch as, once it was on the basis of the of the direction of this Court in the previous lis lis that they came to be examined b ined by the medical board, which, as a matter of atter of fact, found them to be having d ving disability to the extent of 40% by virtue of tue of which the objection regardin egarding the previous certificates primarily bei ily being obtained from private prac e practitioners not only paled into insignificance ficance, rather stood re-affirmed. The d. The appointment as such would have to relate relate back to initial date, as was do as done with regard to the others, PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1) -5- -2017(cid:1) CWP-6519- (cid:1) ergo the trea e treatment meted out to them is in incognizable being in teeth of E.P.Royappa yappa vs. State of T.N.1, wherein erein Hon’ble the Supreme Court eloquently he ntly held that the basic principle whi le which informs both Articles 14 and 16 of th of the Constitution of India is equ is equality and inhibition against discriminatio ination. From a positivistic point of v int of view, equality is antithetic to riness. arbitrariness. 5. On a conspectus evaluation of ion of the matter and as a fallout thereof, the p , the present petition is allowed. The p . The petitioners are held entitled to the same ben e benefits as granted to the others. 07.01.2025 kumar parveen kumar (AMAN CHAUDHARY) Y) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Ye d : Yes / No Whether reportable : Ye : Yes / No (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1) (cid:2) (cid:1) (1974) 4 SC 4) 4 SCC 3(cid:1) PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.14 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (cid:1)