Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill , J.
Mukesh Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CWP-21088-2021 (O&M); CWP-1015-2022 (O&M) and CWP-21277-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Regularization - Services - Industrial Training Institutes - Haryana Field Officers (Group-c) Service Rules, 2013 - The court discussed the issue of regularization of services of Instructors at Industrial Training Institutes in Haryana. The court referred to the Industrial Training Department Haryana Field Officers (Group-c) Service Rules, 2013 and the previous case of 'Ashok Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others'. The court held that mere length of service does not vest an employee with a right to seek regularization, especially in the absence of any specific policy. The court also emphasized that framing a scheme for regularization is the prerogative of the Government and cannot be directed by the court. The court dismissed the writ petitions seeking regularization of services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularization of their services as Instructors at Industrial Training Institutes in Haryana, claiming to have been working on a contract basis for over 10 years and fulfilling all eligibility criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that mere length of service does not entitle an employee to seek regularization, especially in the absence of a specific policy. The court also held that the framing of a scheme for regularization is the prerogative of the Government and cannot be directed by the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization of their services based on their length of service and fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that mere length of service does not confer a right to seek regularization, especially in the absence of a specific policy. The court emphasized that the framing of a scheme for regularization is the prerogative of the Government and cannot be directed by the court.
Final Decision: The writ petitions seeking regularization of services were dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - This order shall dispose of CWP-21088-2021, CWP-21277-2021 and CWP-1015-2022 as an identical issue is sought to be raised in all these three petitions. With the consent of learned counsel, petitions have been taken up together for hearing and decision.
2. Petitioners in these writ petitions seek regularization of their services on the ground that they have been working on contract basis since last more than 10 years. While fulfilling all eligibility criterion and possessing necessary qualifications, petitioners are stated to have been appointed after following due selection procedure. It is submitted that petitioners were selected to the post of Instructors at Industrial Training Institutes in Haryana for a period of six months or till other regular incumbents were available pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondent - department in August, 2011. Their services were extended after every six months as nature of work, it is submitted, is perennial.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are continuously working as Instructors till date and large number of substantive posts of Instructors are lying vacant. Petitioners possess required qualification as per Industrial Training Department Haryana Field Officers (Group-c) Service Rules, 2013. It is further submitted that similarly situated Instructors earlier appointed on contractual basis in 2008 had filed CWP-5289 of 2007 titled 'Ashok Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others', which was allowed on 24.01.2008. State of Haryana preferred SLP (C) No. 9230-31 of 2009 challenging said order dated 24.01.2008 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.07.2011 asked the Chief Secretary, State of Haryana to explore the possibility of accommodating said candidates in any other projects or school, looking to their qualifications and sort out the matter on humanitarian grounds. Pursuant to order dated 13.07.2011, an affidavit was filed by the then Join Secretary, Government of Haryana, Industrial Training Department stating that the Government was prepared to accommodate eligible candidates numbering 258, who fulfil the requisite qualification as per Rules on humanitarian ground in the Industrial Training Department against vacant post, in case direction is issued to that effect. Accordingly, said eligible persons were accommodated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present petitioners have been working since nearly ten years, their appointment was through a proper selection process, with all petitioners fulfilling the eligibility conditions as per applicable Rules, besides availability of the posts in question, therefore, petitioners, it is claimed, are entitled to regularization of their services.
5. In this respect, it is submitted that representation was submitted by the petitioners but to no avail. However, during the pendency of this writ petition, representation submitted by petitioners in CWP-21088-2021 has been decided on 08.11.2021, copy of which has been attached as Annexure P13 alongwith CM-557-CWP-2022 in said writ petition. Representation of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 16389-16415 of 2009 had only directed accommodation of the candidates/employees on humanitarian grounds, therefore, there is no question of regularization of services of the said employees and that no junior of the petitioners has been granted the benefit as there is no regularization policy in existence at this stage.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners' claim has been erroneously rejected and in any case on similar lines as in CWP-5289 of 2007 and SLP (C) No. 9230-31 of 2009, petitioners may atleast be accommodated on humanitarian grounds.
7. Heard learned counsel and perused the files.
8. Reference is made to the facts as extracted from CWP-21088-2021 for the sake of convenience.
9. Petitioners were admittedly appointed on contractual basis as Instr
Mere length of service does not vest an employee with a right to seek regularization, especially in the absence of any specific policy. The framing of a scheme for regularization is the prerogative o....
Longstanding service in a sanctioned post establishes right to regularization despite procedural irregularities in recruitment, supporting equitable treatment of long-term employees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual employees who have served for more than ten years without the protection of any interim order are entitled to be considered for re....
Long-term contractual employees serving on sanctioned posts acquire a legitimate expectation of regularization. The State, acting as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels to arbitrarily....
The court emphasized that long uninterrupted service in governmental roles, despite initial irregular appointments, warrants consideration for regularization in accordance with established legal prec....
The court ruled that contract employees with over ten years of service against sanctioned posts are entitled to regularization, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes and age relaxation ....
Regularization of services for employees who have served for over ten years is a right that must be considered by the state, provided there are no valid objections, and the state must adhere to its o....
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
