Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, S.S.Nijjar and Ashutosh Mohunta JJ.
Tekchand
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1997,
Decided On : AUGUST 8, 2001
Regularisation of Services - State Government - Instructions - [Regularisation of Services] - [Instructions issued by the State Government in March 1996] - [Instructions contain concrete conditions for regularisation of services of casual/daily-rated employees, including completion of 3 years service, working for a minimum period of 240 days in each year, and not having a break in service of more than one month at a time. Court held that the State cannot deny the benefit of regularisation to an employee who has been forced to remain away from the job for more than a month on account of the action or inaction of the authority itself. However, the benefit of regularisation cannot be denied to an employee who remains absent from duty for reasons not attributable to the employer. The Court also clarified that absence on a specific date should not disentitle an employee to claim regularisation in service. The Court affirmed its power to interpret laws and instructions, ensuring that the government acts in conformity with the law and the mandatory requirements of the constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as beldars in the Public Works Department on daily wages, sought regularisation of their services following termination. The respondents argued that the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions laid down in the Government Circulars for regularisation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State cannot deny the benefit of regularisation to an employee who has been forced to remain away from the job for more than a month on account of the action or inaction of the authority itself. However, the benefit of regularisation cannot be denied to an employee who remains absent from duty for reasons not attributable to the employer. The Court also clarified that absence on a specific date should not disentitle an employee to claim regularisation in service. The Court affirmed its power to interpret laws and instructions, ensuring that the government acts in conformity with the law and the mandatory requirements of the constitution.
Issues: 1. Can the State deny regularisation of services to an employee due to a break in service caused by the State itself? 2. Can the employer deny regularisation of services to an employee who remained absent from duty for reasons beyond his control? 3. Does absence on a specific date disentitle an employee to claim regularisation in service? 4. Can the Court go into these matters in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: The State cannot deny the benefit of regularisation to an employee who has been forced to remain away from the job for more than a month on account of the action or inaction of the authority itself. However, the benefit of regularisation cannot be denied to an employee who remains absent from duty for reasons not attributable to the employer. Absence on a specific date should not disentitle an employee to claim regularisation in service. The Court affirmed its power to interpret laws and instructions, ensuring that the government acts in conformity with the law and the mandatory requirements of the constitution.
Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners in the light of the decision within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. If the petitioners fulfill the requirements of the instructions, their services shall be duly regularised. However, in cases where the petitioners have not performed their duties for certain durations of time, they will not be entitled to the arrears of salary.
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J.
1. Can the State or its instrumentalities refuse to regularise the services of an employee on the ground that there is a break of more than a month despite the fact that the employee was not to blame or the fact that the absence was for reasons entirely beyond his control? This question has been answered in favour of the employee by different Benches of this Court. The correctness of the view has been doubted. Thus, these petitions were admitted for hearing before a Full Bench.
2. The issue arises in the context of the instructions issued by the State Government in march, 1996. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the following questions arise:
1. Can the competent authority refuse to regularise the services of a daily wager merely because there was a break of more than a month even when the employer had caused the interruption in service?
2. Can the employer refuse to regularise the services of an employee who had remained absent from duty for a continuous period of more than a month for reasons entirely beyond his control?
3. Does the absence of the employee on january 31, 1996 disentitle him to claim regularisation in service despite the fact that he had remained in service prior to and after that date?
4. Can this Court not go into these matters in proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution?
Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in CWP No.2067 of 1997. These may be briefly noticed. The petitioners were appointed as beldars in the Public Works Department. The appointments were on daily wages. These were made on different dates during the period from the year 1988 to February 1, 1993. Their services were terminated on December 15.1996. The petitioners maintain that in view of the instructions issued by the Government vide letters dated March 7, 1996 and March 18, 1996, they were entitled to regularisation of their services. The action of the respondents in ordering termination was illegal and violative of the instructions. Thus, the petitioners pray that the oral order by which their services were terminated on December 15, 1996 be quashed and that the respondents be directed to regularise their services with effect from the prescribed date viz. February 1, 1996. They also claim all the consequential benefits.
3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Executive engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works department. It has been averred that the petitioners were engaged on temporary muster rolls on daily wages with effect from November 21, 1991, February 3, 1992, December 24, 1992, February 3, 1993 and March 28, (sic)respectively. They were engaged for doing temporary work. Only petitioner No.3 viz. Hem Raj was present on January 31, 1996. The year wise details of the days for which each of the petitioners had worked have been given in the documents at Annexures R.1 to R.5 with the written statement, the services of the petitioners "were not terminated by the respondents. . . . " They have "not turned up at (on) their own for doing the work". Since the petitioners do not fulfil the conditions laid down in the Government Circulars, their services were not regularised.
4. In the five annexures to the written statement, the details regarding the number of days for which each of the petitioners had worked during different years have been given. By way of illustration, the position regarding petitioner No.1 may be noticed. He had been appointed on November 21, 1991. He had worked for a period of 63 days in the year 1991-92 viz,, from November 1991 to January 1992. From February 1992 to January 1993, he had worked for 274 days. Thereafter, during the year 1993-94, he had not worked even for a day in the months of May, June, July and august. Despite that, his number of working days during the year was 205. From February 1994 to January 1995, he had worked for 258 days. He had not worked during the month of february 1994. From
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
