IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
Shabo Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Bhakhra Beas Management Board and others - Respondents
CWP-9983-2013
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Regularization - Part-time Employee - The court dismissed the petition seeking regularization of a part-time employee based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, which held that part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a part-time sweeper, sought regularization and minimum wages as paid to regular employees. The court found that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by a Supreme Court judgment, which held that part-time employees cannot claim regularization or parity in salary with regular employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's case was covered by the Supreme Court judgment and therefore deserved to be dismissed.
Issues: Regularization of part-time employee, entitlement to minimum wages
Ratio Decidendi: Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization or claim parity in salary with regular employees as they are not working against any sanctioned post.
Final Decision: The petition seeking regularization of the part-time employee was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking directions to the respondents to consider her for regularization.
2. The petitioner on 01.09.1991 joined respondent-BBMB as part time Sweeper (Group-D). The petitioner since then is working with respondent, however, her service has not been regularized. The respondent from time to time has framed policies for regularization of employees but there is no policy for regularizing part time employees.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deserves to be regularized in view of her long service and she should be paid minimum wages as paid to the regular employees (Group-D).
4. A Division Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ilmo Devi & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899 has considered issue involved in the present case. The Court has set aside judgment of High Court whereby High Court has ordered to grant minimum basic pay of Group-D to part time daily wagers. The Supreme Court has further set aside directions of High Court with respect to regularization of part time employees. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
“[22] We, thus, direct the petitioner-authorities to re-visit the whole issue in its right perspective and complete the exercise to re-formulate their policy and take a decision to sanction the posts in phased manner within a specified time schedule. Let such a decision be taken within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
[23] Till the exercise as directed above, is undertaken, the respondents shall continue in service with their current status but those of them who have completed 20 years as part-time daily wagers, shall be granted ‘minimum’ basic pay of Group ‘D’ post(s) w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and/or the date of completion of 20 years contractual service, whichever is later.”
xxx xxx xxx
28. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
29. Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, more particularly, directions in paragraphs 22 and 23 are unsustainable and beyond the power of the judicial review of the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the Union of India/Department subsequently came out with a regularization policy dated 30.06.2014, which is absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Umadevi (supra), which does not apply to the part-time workers who do not work on the sanctioned post. As per the settled preposition of law, the regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy. Therefore, in absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of regularization under the regularization policy dated 30.06.2014.
30. Though, we are of the opinion that even the direction contained in paragraph 23 for granting minimum basic pay of Group ‘D’ posts from a particular date to those, who have completed 20 years of part-time daily wage service also is unsustainable as the part-time wag
Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization or claim parity in salary with regular employees as they are not working against any sanctioned post.
Part-time employees cannot be regularised without a sanctioned post and proper recruitment process, as established by Supreme Court precedents.
Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or equal pay unless appointed against sanctioned posts, as per established legal precedents.
Regularization of long-serving employees in irregular positions must be considered based on fairness and established legal principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.