Seniority Upheld: HC rules juniors' regularisation can't bypass seniors, orders parity with arrears and interest
'Denying the same benefit to a senior employee is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that denying regularsation of service to a senior employee — once a junior has been regularised — denying the same benefit to a senior employee is “arbitrary” and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The assertion by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar came during the hearing of a 21-year-old petition field against the PRTC by an employee claiming that the services of two juniors were regularised, while he was left out.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Brar set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to regularise the petitioner’s services from the date his juniors were regularised in June 1997 or February 1998 “whichever was earlier”. Directions were also issued to grant all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, arrears and pension. The court further ordered payment of arrears with 6 per cent interest from the date of filing the petition. The entire process was directed to be completed within three months.
The petitioner was represented by senior advocate Vikas Chatrath with counsel Hridhi Aggarwal.
Referring to the settled legal principle that the State could not selectively extend benefits to some while denying the same to others identically placed, Justice Brar asserted: “Once a public employer regularises a junior employee, the employer is estopped from denying the same benefit to a senior employee who is similarly situated. To grant regularisation to a junior while denying it to a senior is to turn the concept of seniority on its head, rewarding the junior while punishing the senior for no fault of his.”
Rejecting the respondents’ defence that juniors were regularised only pursuant to court orders, Justice Brar held that such a stand could not justify continued discrimination. The court asserted that the State, as a model employer, could not compel every similarly placed employee to approach the court for identical relief.
“The mere fact that some employees approached the Court and obtained relief does not justify differential treatment. Denial of such parity would result in arbitrary classification and unequal treatment among equals, which is impermissible in law,” Justice Brar asserted.
Tracing the timeline, the court noted that the petitioner had been in continuous service since October 1, 1991, and was granted minimum pay scale benefits with effect from November 1, 2004. Despite this, juniors were regularised in 1997–1998, while the petitioner was left out.
The Bench found this conduct untenable. “The State is expected to act in a fair, just and welfare-oriented manner, and cannot be allowed to extract work of a regular nature while denying the petitioners appropriate and commensurate status and benefits,” Justice Brar asserted.
Concluding that the denial of regularisation despite admitted similarity with juniors amounted to a clear breach of equality guarantees, Justice Brar restored the petitioner’s rightful position in service hierarchy by granting retrospective regularisation and full monetary and service benefits.
