Yad Ram vs State of Haryana & others

This order will dispose of the abovementioned writ petition as well as other connected writ petitions* tabulated at the foot of the order, as common

questions of law and facts are involved in them, which can conveniently be decided by a common order.

The petitioners have accepted the notification dated 31.08.2009 (Annex P-9) for over six years before they approached this Court seeking its

quashing. The petitioners are one hundred percent blind persons appointed as Caners on retainership basis for canning the chairs in the Government

Department/Offices in the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment,

Haryana. For the purpose of rehabilitation, the Government took a decision on 31.08.2009 to adjust 128 Caners in the Indian Red Cross Society in the

office of Haryana State Branch on the post of Master Trainer with wages equivalent to the 4th Class employees in the pay band of Rs.4400-

7400+1300 G.P. in the basic salary of Rs.6050 per month and other benefits that are approved from time to time by the Indian Red Cross Society,

Haryana Branch. To give effect to the policy decision, the notification was issued, which is under challenge in this bunch of petitions. The cadre would

be diminishing.

The petitioners, who are aggrieved by their adjustment in the Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch, claim that they should be made regular in

Government services under the policies of regularization. To say the least, the approach by way of legal redress under Article 226 of the Constitution

against the notification dated 31.08.2009 is highly belated.

It is asserted in the written statement put in to contest the case that the notification has been accepted by the petitioners without any objection/protest

and they joined on the post of Master Trainer at District Level on the terms & conditions laid down therein. No representation or grievance towards

the impugned notification was ever raised by the petitioners. The respondents assert that the petitions are highly time barred and deserve to be

dismissed on the ground of huge delay and laches. Their status is neither of daily-wager nor ad hoc nor work-charged/casual employee of the State

Government and they were not appointed against regular vacant posts. They were appointed/adjusted under a scheme of rehabilitation. They cannot

claim regularization under any of the regularization policies (Annex P-3 & P-4). The respondents assert when the petitioners were appointed as

Caners, they were permitted to undertake private work as mentioned in clause (3) of the appointment letter (Annex P-1). It was on the persistent

demand of various blind organizations of the State to appoint and give them regular pay scales that the matter was considered. Keeping in view this

demand, it was decided by the Government during the year 2009 that 128 blind persons working on retainership basis at Block Levels be absorbed as

Master Trainers in the District Red Cross Societies in the State. The petitioners have been given regular appointments in Red Cross Societies. Their

retrospective regularization in the absence of any vacant regular sanctioned post available at that time and after the absorption of the petitioners as

Master Trainer with the District Red Cross Society is not legally tenable. There is no caning work being carried out in the Government offices, as

canning furniture has been replaced with other substitute furniture. Even the claim against policies dated 18.03.1996 and 01.10.2006 with the gap of

almost one or two decades at the time of filing of the petition is inordinately belated. Their services in Red Cross Societies are not under threat, as

assured by the respondents at the time of hearing. Their salaries are permitted by grant-in-aid by the respondents and the aid would continue till they

retire. The State has been releasing its share of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) at the rate of 10% of the basic pay in the accounts of each of the

petitioners.

The reliance placed by the petitioners on orders passed in CWP No.14365 of 1999 titled ‘Birbal Dass & others Vs. State of Haryana &

another’ rendered by a learned Single Judge on 12.04.2002 was a decision based on junior Caners being regularized. It was stated by the

respondents therein that there were 18 sanctioned posts of regular Caners at Headquarter level and district headquarter level and the recruitments

were made only amongst the Caners appointed on retainership basis strictly in accordance with their seniority. The judgment was rendered 16 years

ago and much water has flown under the bridge and the law on regularization is much refined thereafter especially with the pronouncement in

Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 [CB]. No affirmative material has been placed on record to

conclusively support the plea of discrimination in these petitions. If there are 22 regular sanctioned posts i.e. 3 meant for Headquarter and the

remaining are meant for District Officers, then certainly 168 blind persons cannot be adjusted thereon without creation of posts. The Bench appears to

have proceeded perhaps on the assumption that the petitioners before the Court were government employees. The State could not point out this vital

difference. However, much one is sympathetic to the petitioners their claim cannot be accommodated presently under the judgment dated 12.04.2002

or at the time of filing of these petitions.

It has been explained in Para.8 of the written statement filed by the State that those petitioners whose names were registered on or before 31.12.1987

in the Employment Exchanges in Haryana were decided to be given regular appointments. During the year 1988, it was decided by the Government to

launch a special recruitment drive to provide employment to the blind persons whose names are registered in various employment exchanges of the

State up to 31.12.1987. The number of such registered persons was 267 and it was, therefore, decided by the Government that it would exhaust the

existing list first by providing employment to those blind persons whose names were on the then current list. It has been denied that the petitioner is

junior to the blind person/s whose name was in the list dated 31.12.1987 of the Employment Department is/were given employment. No replication has

been filed to controvert this fact, which is, therefore, accepted as correct. It has further been averred in the written statement that there was no

question of fixing any seniority inter se of members of service in Group-D, when the petitioners did not belong to a regular cadre.

In view thereof, the claim of the petitioners is not only belated, but is not supported by material/merit, as they have never been government servants

prior to their adjustments in the Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch. In the matter of policy, the courts would not interfere unless a

fundamental right has been apparently infringed to a degree calling for interference.

Consequently, I find no merit in this bunch of petitions and would dismiss them.