- (1.) THIS order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 570 of 2012 titled as "Jai Narain Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Another" and ten writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14624 of 2013 titled as "Sushil Kumar Rastogi v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 14630 of 2013 titled as "Gulshan Kumar v. State of Haryana and And Other connected Writ Petitions Others", No. 16953 of 2013 titled as "Albel Singh v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 17101 of 2013 titled as "Santosh Rohilla v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 17162 of 2013 titled as "Virender Singh Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 23993 of 2013 titled as "Ramesh Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 25090 of 2013 titled as "Dev Raj and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 26174 of 2013 titled as "Ravinder Kumar Manchanda and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", No. 28667 of 2013 titled as "Sudhir Kumar Sehgal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others" and No. 793 of 2014 titled as "Jagbir Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others", as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. To dictate order, facts are being taken from Letters Patent Appeal No. 570 of 2012.
(2.) BETWEEN the year 2002 to 2004, three Corporations, owned by the State of Haryana i.e. Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation (HSMITC), Haryana State Cooperative Consumer Federation Limited (CONFED) and Haryana Mines and Minerals Corporation Limited (HMMCL), went into loss. All the three were the monopoly Corporations dealing with specific sphere of activities in which private entrepreneurs were not making any participation. Even then all the Corporations failed to yield requisite results. Service to the consumers was not provided and they failed to attract requisite finances. In such like situation who is to be blamed? Definitely, the persons who were working in those Corporations. Inference would be that commitment was lacking in them.
(3.) AFTER retrenchment of the appellants, they got retrenchment compensation. After a break in service ranging from two to four years, a favour was shown to them. They were taken back into service under a Scheme to re -employ retrenched Group 'C' and 'D' employees of Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings etc. who were retrenched during the above said relevant period, subject to the following terms and conditions: "1. The State Public Enterprises and Apex Co -operative Federations, which have been closed, shall not be re -opened. 2. The regular employees of the Boards/Corporations/ Co -operative Federation and other Public Sector Undertakings who have been retrenched on account of closure or restructuring of these organizations between 1st March, 2000 to 1st March, 2005, shall be considered for adjustment. 3. The employees who are less than 55 years of age as on 18.5.2006 shall be considered for adjustment. 4. All vacancies of direct recruitment in Group 'C' posts and in Group 'D' posts in Government Department/ Boards/Corporations/Co -operative Federations/ Public Sector Undertakings/Urban Local Bodies/ Panchayat Raj Institutions shall be kept aside for adjustment from amongst retrenched employees. 5. The adjustment of employees retrenched from Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings including Co -operative Federations would be treated as a special case in itself in the public interest. The adjustment of retrenched employees shall be at the discretion of the Government and such employees will have no legal right in this regard. Therefore, all Departments/Boards/State Public Sector Undertakings and other Government organizations would send a requisition for the number of posts to be filled up from amongst the retrenched employees to a Screening Committee to be constituted for the purpose. 6. The adjustment of the employees shall be as one time measure. 7. The Screening Committee shall devise a scheme with the approval of Chief Minister, on the basis of following broad parameters for adjustment of the retrenched employees, namely: - (i) The adjustment shall be made either on a equivalent post carrying the same designation and nature of duties or on a lower post as per the availability of the vacancies subject to the condition that an employee occupying Group C post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered for adjustment on a Group D post. The prescribed qualifications and age requirements for the purpose of adjustment of the retrenched employee shall be relaxed in view of his/her past experience in case of equivalent post. However, adjustment of a retrenched employee on a non -equivalent post shall be subject to his/her fulfilling the prescribed qualifications or the concerned post. (ii) The adjustment shall be made either on a equivalent post carrying the same designation and nature of duties or on a lower post as per the availability of the vacancies subject to the condition that an employee occupying Group 'C' post at the time of retrenchment shall not be considered for adjustment on a Group 'D' post as per appropriate term and conditions. (iii) Group 'D' retrenched employees shall be considered for adjustment against Group 'D' vacancies and the concept of equivalence of post shall not be applicable. (iv) The eligible persons shall be considered for adjustment on the basis of seniority of age. 8. The adjustment would be subject to the submission by the retrenched employee of an affidavit declaring that the adjustment so provided would be considered as a fresh appointment and he/she would not claim benefit of past service for the period prior to retrenchment or for the period he/she remained out of service as a result of retrenchment in any manner. 9. The Group 'C' posts in Government Departments/ Boards/Corporations etc. against which the retrenched employees are to be adjusted as a consequence of this policy, shall be excluded from the purview of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission with effect from 18.5.2006." By occupying large number of posts, which were taken out of purview of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, in a way they deprived the young generation from getting employment against the posts. As per Clause No.8, it is specifically stated that adjustment would be subject to their filing an affidavit stating that adjustment so provided would be considered as fresh appointment and he/she would not be given benefit of past service for the period he/she remained out of service as a result of retrenchment in any manner. Filing of that affidavit was a condition precedent to get re -employment. All the appellants filed affidavits in terms of the conditions mentioned above. Thereafter, they were taken back into service. If that is so, by entering into service subject to a condition, they cannot turn around and say that condition was bad. They should have challenged the condition before accepting offer made by the Government. It was not so done. Otherwise also, it is an admitted fact that all the employees, when retrenched had received retrenchment compensation. There was a break in their service ranging from two to four years and they were out of service for the said period. If that is so, the condition appears to be justified. They were not asked to return the amount so received by them by way of retrenchment compensation.;