Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BINDAL, ANIL KSHETARPAL, JJ.
Yogesh Tyagi and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
CWP No. 17206 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-05-2018
The High Court quashed the policies framed by the State Government for regularisation of services of ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages employees, holding that they were framed in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court directed that the employees who had been appointed on ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages be allowed to continue for a period of six months, during which the State shall ensure that regular posts, wherever required, are advertised and the process of selection is completed. The court also directed that all such employees be given relaxation in age to the extent of the period they have worked continuously on ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wage basis in the next process of selection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were working either on contract/adhoc/daily wage basis, are seeking a direction for regularisation of their services in terms of the policies issued by the State Government on 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014), 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-15 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014), 7.7.2014 (Annexure P-12 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014) and 7.7.2014 (Annexure P-54 in CWP No. 16863 of 2014). Whereas in some of the petitions, the petitioners, who are working either on contract/adhoc/daily wage basis, are seeking a direction for regularisation of their services in terms of the policies issued by the State Government on 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014), 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-15 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014), 7.7.2014 (Annexure P-12 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014) and 7.7.2014 (Annexure P-54 in CWP No. 16863 of 2014).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the policies framed by the State Government for regularisation of services of ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages employees were framed in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court held that the policies were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as they provided for regularisation of services of employees who had been appointed in violation of the recruitment rules and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the policies were violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) and others' case (supra), which had held that regularisation of services of irregularly appointed employees is not permissible.
Issues: Whether the policies framed by the State Government for regularisation of services of ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages employees were framed in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the policies framed by the State Government for regularisation of services of ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages employees were framed in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court held that the policies were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as they provided for regularisation of services of employees who had been appointed in violation of the recruitment rules and also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the policies were violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (3) and others' case (supra), which had held that regularisation of services of irregularly appointed employees is not permissible.
Final Decision: The court quashed the policies framed by the State Government for regularisation of services of ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages employees. The court directed that the employees who had been appointed on ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wages be allowed to continue for a period of six months, during which the State shall ensure that regular posts, wherever required, are advertised and the process of selection is completed. The court also directed that all such employees be given relaxation in age to the extent of the period they have worked continuously on ad-hoc/contract/work-charged/daily wage basis in the next process of selection.
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of petitions bearing
CWP Nos. 25290 and 25724 of 2012;
CWP Nos. 16024, 16863, 17126, 17206, 21987, 23582, 23909, 23961 of 2014;
CWP Nos. 77, 304, 1133, 1840, 2655, 3470, 3830 to 3835, 4239, 4891 to 4894, 6092, 8141, 8326, 8708, 9074, 9540, 9848, 10751, 10892, 11831, 11983, 12230, 12477, 12570, 12592, 13999, 14424, 14564, 14626, 14686, 16549, 17340, 18920, 20763, 22148, 22973, 22978, 23001, 23050, 23633, 23872, 23910, 24169, 24504, 26119, 26774 of 2015;
CWP Nos. 2, 53, 542, 2298, 4734, 5335, 5879, 5891, 6573, 7009, 7261, 7974, 7983, 8669, 9098, 9776, 9829, 9860, 9866, 10360, 16663, 16792, 17267, 17932, 18502, 18641, 19072, 19107, 19202, 20612, 19741, 22171, 22179, 22886, 24077, 24111, 27154 of 2016;
CWP Nos. 211, 4914, 4975, 5181, 5236, 5811, 5840, 5885, 5983, 6674, 6776, 7022, 7746, 8320, 8592, 8998, 9058, 9587, 9635, 9865, 9886, 10037, 10123, 10399, 10787, 11076, 11119, 11183, 11746, 12087, 12948, 18585, 18969, 19146, 19235, 20356, 22131, 22285, 23440, 24313 of 2017;
CWP Nos. 3013, 3101, 3173 and 7165 of 2018.
2. In this bunch, in some of the petitions, challenge has been made to the policies issued by the State Government on 16.6.2014 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014), 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-15 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014), 7.7.2014 (Annexure P-12 in CWP No. 17206 of 2014) and 7.7.2014 (Annexure P-54 in CWP No. 16863 of 2014). Whereas in some of the petitions, the petitioners, who are working either on contract/adhoc/daily wage basis, are seeking a direction for regularisation of their services in terms of the aforesaid policies.
3. The gist of the policies, which are sought to be challenged are as under:
Policy dated 16.6.2014
Vide aforesaid policy, the Government decided to regularise the services of Group 'B' employees, who have worked for not less than 3 years as on 28.5.2014 and were still in service.
Policy dated 18.6.2014
Vide aforesaid policy, the Government provided that services of Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees, who had minimum of three years service as on 28.5.2014 and were still in service be regularised.
Policy dated 7.7.2014
In terms of the aforesaid policy, the Government decided to regularise the services of Group 'B' emloyees, who have or will complete 10 years of service as on 31.12.2018
Policy dated 7.7.2014
In terms of the aforesaid policy, the Government decided to regularise the services of Group 'C' and Group 'D' emloyees, who have or will complete 10 years of service as on 31.12.2018
4. Mr. Anurag Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWP No. 17206 of 2014 submitted that vide order dated 10.2.2014 passed in CWP No. 22685 of 2011—Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, this Court directed that the process of selection of Assistant Professors, for which requisition had already been sent on 29.11.2013, be completed. It was a case in which action of the State in granting extension year after year to Guest Faculty was under challenge, as the vacancies were not being filled on regular basis. Final direction was that Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') will make its recommendations by 15.11.2014 and thereafter the State shall proceed to complete the process of appointment by 31.12.2014. To circumvent the aforesaid order, the State came out with a policy on 16.6.2014, which provided for regularisation of Group-B employees, appointed/engaged on contract basis. The condition for regularisation provided therein was that the employee/worker should have completed not less than 3 years as on 28.5.2014 and is still in service. The posts against which the incumbents are regularised are to be taken out of the purview of the Commission. The requisition, if any, sent for filling up the posts, may be either withdrawn or the number may be modified. Reference was also made to para No. 6 of the aforesaid policy stating that in future, no illegal/irregular appointment should be made against sanctioned posts, as if earlier
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
