RAJPALversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 756
- Decided
- 20 November 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The appellant is entitled to regularisation like similarly situated persons but not to back wages; he will receive other consequential benefits.
Summary
The appellant, Rajpal, was the only employee in his field who had not been regularised despite similarly situated colleagues being taken into service. He filed an appeal challenging the State of Haryana's refusal to regularise him. The Supreme Court examined whether the principle of equal treatment required his regularisation and whether he was entitled to back wages. Relying on earlier decisions (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3099‑3100/85), the Court held that he must be regularised like his peers but is not eligible for back wages, only other consequential benefits. Consequently, the respondents were ordered to take the appellant into service within four weeks, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee left out from regularisation, while similarly situated employees were regularised, is entitled to the same relief.
- Whether back wages can be awarded to the employee in such regularisation cases.
Subjects
Judgment
RAJPAL A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 20, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B
Service Law:
Regulmisation-Similarly situated persons already regularised-Appel-
lant to be taken into se1vice and regularised-However, he will not be entitled C
to back wages but shall get all other consequential benefits.
In this appeal against the High Court's order, the appellant prayed
for regularisation.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
D
HELD : 1. Since the persons similarly situated were admittedly taken
into service and their services have been regularised, the appellant, who is
the only person left out in the field, also stands in the same position. On
this special circumstances, he is also entitled to the same relief. [482-B]
E
2. The respondents are directed to take the appellant int9 service
within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
But the appellant would not be entitled to the back-wages; he would,
however, get all other consequential benefits. [482-C)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11401 of F
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.92 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in RS.A. No. 1065 of 1992.
S.M. Hooda, Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Appellant. G
Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned. H
481
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Leave granted.
In view of the order passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3099-
3100/85 & batch, the persons similarly situated were admittedly taken into
service and their services have been regularised. Under these circumstan-
ces, since the appellant, who is the only person left out in the field, also
B stands in the same position, we think, on this special circumstances, he is
also entitled to the same relief.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. But the appellant would not be
entitled to the back-wages; he would, however, get all other consequential
C benefits. The respondents are directed to take the appellant into service
within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.