Disposed

Prem Lata & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2010CWP/8602/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant disposed of two 1987 writ petitions seeking regularization of adhoc lecturers employed since 1983. After noting the Supreme Court's decision preventing termination during pendency, the bench held that after over 22 years of service, petitioners' services must be regularized under Government policy, while those relieved must seek administrative redress.

What did the court decide?

Services of petitioners continuing in adhoc status since 13.1.1988 shall be regularized under Government policy; others must seek administrative redressal.

Prem Lata & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8602 of 1987 Date of Decision : February 03, 2010.

¶3

Mrs.Prem Lala and others ..... Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶6

Civil Writ Petition No.8677 of 1987

¶7

Krishan Singh and others ....... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶11

Present : None for the petitioners. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶12

-.-

¶13

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶18

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.8602 and 8677 of 1987 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases.

¶19

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.8602 of 1987.

¶20

C.W.P.No .8602 of 1987 (O&M) 2

¶21

The petitioners were appointed as Lecturers (Colleges) on adhoc/short-term basis on different dates starting from 25.11.1983 to September, 1986. In these writ petitions filed in the year 1987, they seek a direction for regularization of their services.

¶22

Vide order dated November 18, 1987, the termination of services of the petitioners were stayed. This order was, however, later on modified on 13.1.1988 to the following effect:-

¶23

“The stay order is modified in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 16^th December, 1987 passed in the case of Sukhwinder Kaur and others and it is ordered that the Government shall appoint the selected candidates against the vacancies already available in the first instant. If all the selected candidates are not accommodated then the junior-most adhoc employees will give way for the appointment of the selected candidates. It is further made clear that adhoc employee's service shall be terminated only if his post is required to accommodate the selected candidate.

¶24

It has further been pointed out that the case in the Supreme Court is fixed for hearing for 27^th January, 1988. This case is, therefore, adjourned for two months to await the decision.”

¶25

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners despite repeated adjournments.

¶26

Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, states that despite the information sought, the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), Punjab, has not been able to trace out the complete

¶27

C.W.P.No .8602 of 1987 (O&M) 3

¶28

records of the petitioners to find out as to how many of them are still in service.

¶29

I have considered the claim of the petitioners on merits. In my considered view, if some of the petitioners have continued on adhoc basis pursuant to the order dated 13.1.1988, it is obvious that their services cannot be permitted to be terminated after such a long duration of over 22 years. Their services shall accordingly be regularized in accordance with the Government Policy/decisions taken from time to time. Those who, in terms of the modified order dated 13.1.1988, stood relieved from their adhoc appointments shall be at liberty to seek redressal against such relieving orders on administrative side.

¶30

With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed

¶31

of.

¶32

Dasti.

¶33

03-02-2010 Mohinder

¶34

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Prem Lata & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Lata & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santosh Saini Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakhshish Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Janak Rani Vs State of Punjab etc.