Denying Regularization From Correct Date Infringes on Employee’s Rights to Equal Pay For Equal Work As Well As Protection Under Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution: Rajasthan HC
The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the Respondents to regularize his services from the initial date of joining on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC).

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a petition of an employee seeking regularization of his services from the initial date of joining and ruled that denying regularization from the correct date infringes on the petitioner’s rights to equal pay for equal work and protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in employment.
The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the Respondents to regularize his services from the date of joining, i.e., December 18, 1989, instead of January 16, 1992, on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The petitioner also sought all consequential benefits from the initial date of joining as per the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Subordinate (Ministerial & Establishment) Services Rules, 1957.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Monga asserted, “The petitioner’s counterparts were granted regularization benefits effective from 18.12.1989, and denying the same to the petitioner constitutes a violation of the principle of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Advocate Rakesh Sinha represented the Petitioner while Govt. Counsel P.S. Chundawat represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The petitioner, in this case, was initially appointed on daily wages as a Typist in the office of the Executive Engineer, PHED, District-II, Jodhpur (respondent No.5). He filed a writ petition seeking regularization on the post of LDC/Typist pursuant to a notification. The High Court allowed the petition directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services as LDC as per the amended rules of the notification within three months. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent department filed a Special Appeal which was dismissed.
In compliance with the notification, the petitioner was appointed as LDC by an order issued by the Chief Engineer, PHED (Rural), Jaipur, with effect from January 16, 1992. The petitioner submitted a representation stating that his counterparts, who were similarly regularized, were granted appointments effective from the notification date (December 18, 1989), whereas he was denied the same benefit.
Arguments
The Petitioner’s main submission was that there was no justification for denying him regularization especially since similarly situated employees were regularized from that date.
Reasoning
Referring to the Counter affidavit submitted by the Respondents, the Bench stated, “Reading of para 9 of the counter affidavit, in its entirety, clearly reflects that there is an admission, though of course, a tacit one, on the part of the respondents that the counterparts of the petitioner were indeed assigned the date of regularization prior to the petitioner, based on the same very notification dated 18.12.1989.”
It was observed by the High Court that the petitioner is entitled to equal treatment under the notification of 1989, which regularized other employees in similar circumstances. “Given that the petitioner is similarly placed and has satisfied the requisite conditions, including passing the type test, he is entitled to the same treatment”, it added.
The Bench further held that the principle of equity warrants equal treatment for employees in comparable situations. However, the respondents appointed the petitioner as LDC effective from January 16,1992, creating an arbitrary distinction without reasonable justification. This action amounted to hostile discrimination. The High Court, thus, held, “Denying regularization from the correct date infringes on the petitioner’s rights to equal pay for equal work and protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination in employment.”
Allowing the Petition, the Bench directed the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on parity with the counterparts in terms of the Notification of 1989 within two months by according him the same date of regularization i.e. December 18, 1989.
Cause Title: Abdul Hamid v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:48976)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Dr. Rakesh Sinha
Respondents: Govt. Counsel P.S. Chundawat