Allowed

Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Nov 2024CWP/11416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of services. The court ruled that despite the petitioner's appointment being on a part-time basis via the Employment Exchange with a lapsed qualification, the continuous service of nearly three decades creates a deemed regular post. The respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner's services within eight we

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass an order for regularization of petitioner No.1's services under instructions dated 29.07.2011 within eight weeks.

Joginder Singh and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP-11416-2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

230

¶5

CWP-11416-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 13.11.202 4

¶6

Joginder Singh a nd another

¶7

…Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryan a and Others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶12

Present : M s . Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate, f or the petitioner M r . Dushyant Saharan, AAG Hary a na *****

¶13

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Pr a yer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to consider the c l aim of the petitioners for reg u larization in the light of policy decision dated 2 9.07.2011.

¶15

Th e services of petitioner No.1, a ppointed as a Water Carrier o n a part time basis on 30.10.1986, were not regul a rised on the ground that his na m e for appointmen t was not recommended by the Employment Exchange, rather his registration the r ewith was on the basis of his m atriculation certificate, which h ad lapsed in Marc h , 1987 and was not got renewed. 3. Le a rned counsel states that case o f petitioner No.1 is covered by t he decision rende r ed in Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others vs. Darshan Singh and others¹ , wherein the Di v ision Bench while considerin g a similar plea, ob s erved and held thus:

¶16

� LPA-837-2018, d ecided on 19.07.2022

¶17

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.21 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶18

-2-

¶19

CWP-11416-2019

¶20

“Keeping in view the directions and the view laid do w n in Satyadev (supra), the wri t petitions were eventually allo w ed by noticing that the writ pe t itioners were working since 19 9 5- 1997 and though they h a d not been employed thro u gh Employment Exchange. Re s ultantly, directions were issue d to consider their case for re g ularization within a period o f 3 months. As noticed, the jud g ment has been upheld till the A p ex Court. We have also referre d to the table reproduced abov e to show the discrimination as t he writ petitioners were appoin t ed between 1993-1995 and juniors have been granted the ben e fit of regulization vide co m munication dated 05.03.2 0 15 (Annexure P-16).

¶21

It is also a matter o f record that in CWP-17998-19 9 9, Prem Singh & others Vs. H a ryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam L td. & others, decided on 22.0 8 .2002, the judgment in Satya d ev (supra) was also considered a nd it was held that the Nigam w as under an obligation to fram e a policy on regularization which in essence should provide for the object to be achieved. Directions were accordingl y issued to formulate and fra m e policy and also to consid e r the case for regularization of services of the writ petitione r s who had been appointed as p a rttime Sweepers and Malis since 1987-1997 and had b e en working without any break.

¶22

In such circumstance s , we are of the considered opin i on that despite the fact that there were sanctioned posts availa b le in both the categories of Ma l is and Sweepers, as noticed by t he learned Single Judge in Gia n Chand's case (supra) the denial on this technical issues that they were not employed against an advertisement or through an Employment Exchange, is unwarranted for. It is not d i sputed that all the writ petitio n ers continue to be in service e v en at this point of time and t h us have almost spent 3 decad e s with the appellant-Nigam w ho still wishes to discriminat e against them and not grant t he benefit of regularization. It i s to be noticed that in LPA-15 7 0- 2017 titled H.V.P.N.L. and o thers Vs. Surinder Pal, decided on 25.08.2017, costs of Rs.50,000/- were imposed. We do not f eel why we should not take the s ame view regarding impositio n of costs while dismissing the p r esent appeal.”

¶23

In Raj Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana and others² , the services of an employee, w ho had rendered long years of service, while working as a W a ter Carrier on par t time basis, in the same Dep a rtment as the petitioners her e in, though, in a di f ferent District, were directed t o be regularised and to which no challenge was m ade. The relevant paras of the s a me read thus:

¶24

� CWP-5617-202 1 , decided on 15.05.2024

¶25

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.21 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶26

-3-

¶27

CWP-11416-2019

¶28

“8. It is conceded fact t h at the petitioner is working a s a water Carrier with the resp o ndents from the last 29 years on part time basis. If a pe r son is working in a partic u lar department for a period o f 29 years, it cannot be said t h at he/she is working on pa r t time basis. Once, there i s a requirement of the work be i ng done by the petitioner and t he need of work is continued fr om the last 29 years, it cannot be said that there does not exis t any post to regularize the servi c es of the petitioner. There has t o be a deemed creation of the post in question keeping in vie w the nature of the duties to be performed and the duration o f the employment.

¶29

As per the ju d gment of the Hon’ble Supre m e Court of India titled as ‘ Pr e m Singh Vs. Uttar Pradesh pas s ed in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2 019 (@Special Leave Peititon (c) No.4371 of 2011), decided o n 02.09.2019’ wherein it has b e en held that some of the emplo y ees, who had worked for 30 to 40 years with a particular insti tu tion, their services have not b e en regularized though they had crossed the age of superannuati o n, hence, once the employee h ad rendered 10 years service, t he same should have been r egularized keeping in view t he judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others ver s us Uma Devi and others, AI R 2006 SC 1806 as a one ti m e measure. In the case befo r e the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Hon'ble Court dir e cted regularization of the servi c es of employees who had ren d ered more than three decades of service but with the conditi o n that no difference of salary w ill be paid to them. Relevant pa r agraph 35 of the judgment inPrem Singh's case (supra) is as un d er:-

¶30

“35. There are some of the employees who have n ot been regularized in s p ite of having rendered the servi c es for 30-40 or more years whereas they have b e en superannuated. As t h ey have worked in the workcharged establishmen t , not against any particular proj e ct, their services ought t o have been regularized under t he Government instructi o ns and even as per the decisio n of this Court in Secreta r y, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid do w n that in case services have b e en rendered for more tha n ten years without the cover of t he Court's order, as on e time measure, the services be regularized of such e m ployees. In the facts of the c a se, those employees who have worked for ten years or m o re should have been reg u larized. It would not be prope r to regulate them for c o nsideration of regularisation as others have been r e gularised, we direct that t h eir services be treated as a regular one. However, it is m a de clear that they shall n o t be entitled to claiming any d u es of difference in wa g es had they been continued in service regularly b efore attaining the age of superannuation. The y shall be entitled to receive t he

¶31

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.21 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶32

-4-

¶33

CWP-11416-2019

¶34

pension as if they have retired from the reg u lar establishment and th e services rendered by them ri g ht from the day th e y entered the work-char g ed establishment shall b e counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.”

¶35

Keeping in view the above judgment, there has to b e a presumption that the work o f the post on which the petitione r is discharging the duties exists and the same has to be treated a s a regular post.

¶36

Even otherwise, the i nstructions regarding reguarliz i ng the services of the petitione r were issued by the respondent s in the year 2011 (Annexure P- 2 ) so as to regularize the servic e of m the part-time employees w ho had completed the minim u required service.

¶37

With regard to the ar g ument of the learned counsel for the respondent that at the relevant time there was no post available on which the pet i tioner was working, it cannot be said that in the next 13 year s , no post on which the petitione r is discharging the duties from the last 29 years, came into be i ng for regularizing the service of the petitioner, hence, any post which is vacant or by treati n g the post on which the petitio n er is working from the last 2 9 years as a deemed regular post created, the respondents sh o uld have considered the claim of the petitioner for regularizat i on of his services. 13. It may be noticed t h at the argument of the lear n ed counsel for the respondents that the name of the petitioner h as not been recommended by the Employment Exchange s tands clarified keeping in view t he appointment letter issued t o the petitioner for the post in question (Annexure P-1) th a t his name was duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

¶38

Keeping in view the f a cts and circumstances of this c a se, the present petition is allow e d and the respondents are direc t ed to pass an appropriate order for regularizing the services of t he petitioner under the instruc t ions dated 29.07.2011 (Annex u re P-2) within the period of eight weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.” 5. Th e aforesaid judgment even sta n ds implemented vide letter da t ed 28.10.2024 issued by the Director General, AY U SH, Haryana, the relevant ext r act

¶39

whereof reads t h us:

¶40

“In compliance of order da t ed 15.05.2024 of Hon’ble Pun j ab and Haryana High Court i n CWP No. 5617 of 2021 and t he decision taken by the Hary a na Government vide Notificat i on No.GSR.9/ Const/Art.309/ 2 011 dated 29.07.2011 regard i ng regularization of emplo y ees/workers appointed/engaged/ adhoc/ contract/ work-charg e d/daily-wages and part-time b a sis

¶41

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.21 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶42

-5-

¶43

CWP-11416-2019

¶44

of Group-C & D, you are h e reby regularized w.e.f. 29.07.2 0 11 in the pay scale of Rs. 444 0 -7440+1300 Grade Pay plus us u al allowances as sanctioned b y the Haryana Government fr o m time to time and posted at Directorate of AYUSH Harya n a, Panchkula on the following t erms and conditions as a one ti m e settlement, therefore, not c o nferring the entitlement on ot h ers to claim it as a matter of rig h t.”

¶45

Le a rned counsel does not press t h e petition on behalf of petitio n er No.2, but pra y s for liberty to file a com p rehensive representation to t he respondents, w h ich may be directed to be decid e d in a time bound manner.

¶46

Le a rned counsel for the responde n ts, despite his best efforts has n ot been able to co n trovert the factual position, ins o far as petitioner No.1 is concer n ed and draw out a n y distinctive aspects in the afo r ementioned judgments or cite a ny contrary law a n d has no objection to the li m ited prayer made on behalf of petitioner No.2.

¶47

In wake of the above, the pre s ent petition is disposed of q ua petitioner No.1, in terms of Raj Pal Singh (supra). In case, petitioner N o .2 submits a rep r esentation within a period o f four weeks, the same shall be considered and d ecided expeditiously, in accor d ance with law.

¶48

13.11.2024 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE

¶49

W h ether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No W h ether reportable : Yes / No

¶50

PARVEEN KUMAR 2024.11.21 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Vs State of Haryana and Ohters

Janga Alias Jagir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ravinder Saini and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajan Kathwas Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

Liza Paul Vs National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.