2015 (5) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Court deems failure to regularize petitioner's long-term service arbitrary. Respondents ordered to act promptly.

The court found the failure to regularize the petitioner's services, after nearly fifteen years of continuous work, compared to others with similar ... Arbitrariness in non-regularisation of service - Equality before law and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 15) - Regularisation of long-continued contingent employment - Discretionary power to regularise service and limits on issuing mandamus - Consideration of internal administrative communication in regularisation decisionsArbitrariness in non-regularisation of service - Equality before law and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 15) - Whether the denial of regularisation to the petitioner after long-continuing engagement since 08.08.2000 was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 and human rights. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioner was engaged by the Department since 08.08.2000 and, having rendered nearly fifteen years of service, was denied the benefit of regularisation while the Department regularised services of other similarly situated persons. The Court treated the discriminatory refusal to extend the same benefit as arbitrary and noted that, after such prolonged service, denial of regularisation would occasion hardship and touch upon the petitioner's human rights. Although the respondents maintained that the engagement was contingent and that no right to regularisation arises as of right, the factual matrix of long-continuous service and selective regularisation of colleagues led the Court to infer arbitrariness and a breach of equality and non-discrimination principles under Articles 14 and 15.Denial of regularisation to the petitioner was held to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 and human rights.Regularisation of long-continued contingent employment - Consideration of internal administrative communication in regularisation decisions - Discretionary power to regularise service and limits on issuing mandamus - Direction to respondents to reconsider and pass appropriate orders regarding the petitioner's service in light of the internal communication dated 15.11.2007. - HELD THAT: - Recognising that the question of formal regularisation engages administrative discretion and that the file contains an internal communication forwarding names for regularisation, the Court did not itself regularise the petitioner but directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders taking the internal communication into account. The Court observed that the communication of 15.11.2007 and the fact of selective regularisation of others are materials warranting fresh administrative consideration. The respondents were required to act within the timeframe specified in the order and to decide the petitioner's claim in accordance with law and the internal communication, thereby balancing the limits on judicially compelling regularisation with the need to remedy arbitrary administrative action.Respondents directed to pass appropriate orders afresh, keeping in view the internal communication dated 15.11.2007; matter remitted to respondents for consideration within the time specified in the order.Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim for regularisation in light of the internal communication of 15.11.2007; the Court found the previous refusal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 and remitted the matter for fresh administrative decision within the time fixed by the Court. Issues:Regularization of service of a petitioner who has worked for the Income Tax department for over 14 years, but whose services have not been regularized compared to others with similar tenure.Analysis:The petitioner was engaged as a driver-cum-peon by the Deputy Director of Income Tax in 2000, and subsequently transferred to Belgaum when the office was relocated. The petitioner has been working continuously since then and has completed over 14 years of service. The petitioner's services were engaged on a contingent basis initially, but it evolved into a regular basis as indicated in internal communications. The Additional Director of Income Tax, Belgaum, forwarded names for regularization of service, including the petitioner, but only two out of four were regularized due to completing 10 years, while the petitioner had only eight years at that time.The petitioner argues that not regularizing his services after 14 years would cause great hardship and is arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The respondent's counsel contends that since the engagement was on a contingent basis, there is no right for regularizing services, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for this purpose. Referring to an internal communication not pertaining to the petitioner is also raised as a point.The court notes that the petitioner has been working for the respondent since 2000, with work being extracted in various capacities. The internal communication of 2007 regarding regularization of services of employees was significant. The court finds the failure to regularize the petitioner's services, especially after nearly fifteen years of service, when others in similar situations were regularized, to be arbitrary. Denying regularization at this stage is seen as a violation of human rights. Consequently, the court directs the respondents to pass appropriate orders based on the internal communication of 2007 within a specified time frame.In conclusion, the court orders the respondents to take necessary actions regarding the regularization of the petitioner's services, emphasizing the importance of the internal communication from 2007. The writ petition is disposed of with this directive.