Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
Simmi Nayyar - Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Human Rights Commission & another - Respondents
CWP No. 1700 of 2018
Decided On : 14-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Malik, Ms. Rimple Kadyan, Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of authority of the Registrar (Law & Legal) to pass orders affecting the petitioner's rights in the absence of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission. The judgment emphasized the invalidity of the orders and reinstated the petitioner into service as a regular Private Secretary.
Headnote:
Certiorari - Service Regularization - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 21, 27 - The court discussed the appointment and regularization of the petitioner's services as a Private Secretary under the Haryana Human Rights Commission. It highlighted the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, particularly Section 21 and 27, and their implications on the regularization and termination of the petitioner's services. The court emphasized the lack of authority of the Registrar (Law & Legal) to pass orders affecting the petitioner's rights in the absence of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission. The judgment invalidated the impugned orders and reinstated the petitioner into service as a regular Private Secretary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash orders de-regularizing and dispensing with her services as a Private Secretary in the Haryana Human Rights Commission. The petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis and later her services were regularized. Subsequently, her services were de-regularized and terminated by the acting Chairperson and the Registrar (Law & Legal) in the absence of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders de-regularizing and terminating the petitioner's services were without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. It declared the orders illegal and invalidated them by issuing a writ of certiorari. The court reinstated the petitioner into service as a regular Private Secretary with all consequential benefits.
Issues: The issues involved the authority to de-regularize and terminate the petitioner's services, the lack of appointing and disciplinary authority of the Registrar (Law & Legal), and the implications of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 on the petitioner's regularization and termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Registrar (Law & Legal) lacked the authority to pass orders affecting the petitioner's rights in the absence of the Chairperson and Members of the Commission. It emphasized the invalidity of the orders and reinstated the petitioner into service as a regular Private Secretary.
Final Decision: The impugned orders de-regularizing and terminating the petitioner's services were declared illegal and invalidated. The petitioner was reinstated into service as a regular Private Secretary with all consequential benefits. The Registrar (Law & Legal) was directed not to pass orders affecting the petitioner's rights until the State Commission is reconstituted and the Chairperson and Members are in office.
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 20.02.2017 (Annex P-7), whereby her services have been arbitrarily and illegally de-regularized and the further order dated 17.01.2018 (Annex P-11), which abruptly dispenses with her services. She prays further for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as Private Secretary in a regular appointment in view of the orders passed by the Chairperson of the Haryana Human Rights Commission.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Personal Assistant by the Chairperson of the Haryana Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh vide appointment letter dated 13.02.2013. The appointment was purely on contract/temporary basis to run initially for a period of six months on fixed/consolidated pay of Rs.20,000/- per month. By further order dated 24.06.2013, the petitioner was appointed by the Chairperson as Private Secretary on the same terms on contract/temporary basis. The Chairperson was pleased to extend the period of service by six months placing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200 with initial start of Rs.16,290/- on the terms and conditions set out in the office order dated 26.11.2014. The tenure was extended for six months vide order dated 17.06.2015 and again on 08.12.2015. Thereafter, by order dated 01.08.2016, her services as Private Secretary were regularized w.e.f. 06.07.2016 in the pay scale Rs.9300-34800 + 4200 GP plus such allowances as may be admissible from time to time to the employees of Haryana Government against the post sanctioned by the Haryana Government.
3. The then Chairperson, Haryana Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh retired while demitting office on 01.08.2006 on completion of age of 70 years. The Members of the Commission were a retired High Court Judge and an IAS Officer both retiring on 19.09.2017 and 20.09.2017 respectively. Presently, the Haryana Human Rights Commission has neither Chairperson nor Members and in this regard litigation is pending in this Court in CWP No.20951 of 2017 titled ‘Arjun Sheoran, Advocate Vs. Haryana State Human Rights Commission & others’.
4. The Parliament has enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), which provides for the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in all the States and establishes Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 21 constitutes the State Human Rights Commission. The State of Haryana has constituted the Haryana Human Rights Commission. Section 21(2(a) requires a Chairperson to be appointed, from amongst persons who have been a Chief Justice of a High Court. Section 21(2)(b) provides for appointment of one Member, who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court or District Judge in the State with a minimum of seven years experience as District Judge. The Commission must also have a Member having knowledge of or practical experience in matters in relation to human rights. Section 21(3) provides that there shall be a Secretary who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the State Commission and shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions of the State Commission as it may delegate to him.
5. Section 27 deals with Officers and other staff of the State Commission. Section 27(2) is of paramount importance to this case, when it provides that subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government, the State Commission may appoint such other administrative, technical and scientific staff as it may consider necessary. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 41 of the Act, the Government of Haryana has made draft Haryana Human Rights Commission (Group C) Service Rules, 2015, which are still in draft shape and have not been notifi
