- (1.) Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P-12) vide which the claim of the petitioners stands rejected for grant of benefit of entire length of service rendered by the petitioners in the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the HSMITC') and other Corporations/Statutory Organizations/Boards to the petitioners for the purpose of grant of Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as 'ACP') Scale and retiral benefits and for removal of the anomaly in ACP and also to extend the same benefit as granted in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Deepak Sood and others decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008 on 15.07.2008 (Annexure P-5).
(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners were employees of various State owned Corporations. These Corporations were running in losses because of which the Government decided to close the same and various employees who were juniors to the petitioners in their respective cadre in their organizations were declared surplus and were sent on deputation/ transfer/ absorption in various Departments of State of Haryana. On such deputation/ transfer/ absorption, they were given of the benefits which accrued to them for their service rendered in their parent Boards/Corporations for the purpose of pay protection, ACP and other retiral benefits. Petitioners were continued in service of the Boards/Corporations but they came to be retrenched later on. After a break of some time, petitioners were absorbed in various Departments of the State of Haryana but their appointment in the Government Departments were to be governed as per the terms and conditions of their appointment letter. Pay protection and other monetary benefits were not granted at that time nor were they given the benefit of their seniority. Petitioners contend that they have been discriminated against while similarly placed employees have been granted the benefit of pay protection, ACP and other benefits of the past service. Reliance in support of their claim has been made on the case of the employees who were declared surplus from Municipal Corporation and other Statutory Organizations, who were later on absorbed in the Government Departments of the State of Haryana and when were not given the benefit of the past service and having approached the Supreme Court, they were granted the said relief by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 15.07.2008 in the case of State of Haryana and another Vs. Deepak Sood and others (Annexure P-5). Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in C.W.P No.19638 of 2008 titled as 'Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 14.01.2010 wherein similar benefits were granted to the petitioners. Reference has been made to the Scheme dated 16.12.2010 introduced by the State of Haryana (Annexure P-9) with regard to grant of additional increment at 10th and 20th year point in time scale to all Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees and on this basis petitioners are claiming the grant of ACP increment.
(3.) As the aforesaid relief was not granted to the petitioners their umbrella body filed C.W.P. No.19447 of 2009 titled as 'Joint Action Committee Retrenched Employees, Haryana Vs. State of Haryana'. The same was dismissed but liberty was granted to the members of the Union to make individual representations to the respondents to plead their cases by giving necessary facts with further direction to the respondents that they shall examine such representations and dispose them of within four months of their receipt by applying the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Deepak Sood . In pursuance to this, representations were filed by the petitioners to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, which were disposed of vide order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P-12) rejecting the claim of the petitioners leading to the petitioners approaching this Court by way of the present writ petition challenging this order.;