Raj Singh And ORS. v. State Of Punjab & ORS
!"#"$$
%& '( )(* """
* +* , & , %- )(* """
. ) /$ CWP-3042-2002 (O&M) &0"&12
"""
* +* , & , %- )(* """
. )
! "! ### $ %
&!'( (!!(
) $
* $
+ ,* -.
///
!
0+
* 1
*
( 3
3
! "! ### "
# $
%
$& '(") # $
& )
. * .+
* .
* 4
5
(& ! ##"
'
6 *
.
.+
$
3 . + #7'
** #8( + 3
* 4
. +
+
+ .
+ 3
. . * 4
-
"
)
**+ *
3
*
- *
* * 4
3
*
- +
*+ **
**
- *
-
9
.
* 4
.*
:
*+ *
3
.
;
+
* +
<
! "!
###
**
=
<
& ; '
# *+ . * 4
.
*
*.* * 4
. * 4
6 *
<
&!'(
(!!( .
.
.+
<
&777
#8;
<
; *+ :
$
%
5
.+ $
! ! (!!(
*+ . * . .
* 4
= .
. *+
+ .
=
-
+
.
* 4
.
* ** *+
**
1 * .
6 *
.*
. .* * 1 *
.
# * *
.* !
1
<
! "!
### . * 4 + .
<
&!'(
(!!(
. * 4
.
+
<
! "!
###
+
.-
3 .+
$ *
+ 3
*
-
*
-
+ * .
* 4
)
.-
3
*
**
*+ . * 4 .+
1 * . *
) . .
*+
*
. .
( > .
* 4
. **+ +
.
-
+ 3
-
*
& 2 1
* + 3
.
* 4
?
. :
9.* $
5
* <
'8&
(!('
$
%
$ $& #*
(! ( (!('
. * + * +
?
* 4
? 3
-
0
+
,*
$& - . # $
%
/ 0* (!!;
@'A $
) *
- "xxx
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad,hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization.
In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..."
xxx
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long,serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one,time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country." '
) 1
* 4
+
. :
9.* $
5
* <
8 "8 7 7#
(!('
1 # $
%
* 2)#*
& ! (!(" * 4
+ * (!
+
. .
+
*** . . =
) *
-
"xxx
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily,wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment.
Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts.
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms."
"
6 *
. .*
. * 4
+
) 1 * 4
;
5 + :
B.* $
5 *
* <
;7#8
(! # '
%
$&
'#
# $
*
!( !# (! # * *+
3
+ . +
.
.+
+ .
) *
- "30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work,charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work,charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their
services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work,charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work,charged establishment. 31.
In view of the note appended to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, there is a provision to count service spent on work charged, contingencies or non pensionable service, in case, a person has rendered such service in a given between period of two temporary appointments in the pensionable establishment or has rendered such service in the interregnum two periods of temporary and permanent employment. The work,charged service can be counted as qualifying service for pension in the aforesaid exigencies.
32.
The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in,between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work, charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in,between temporary and permanent services.
There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work, charged period in case it has been rendered before regularization. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work,charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work,charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification.
33.
As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularization in the capacity of work,charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non,pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment."
2
*+
.-
3
*
*.*
+ * 4
> $ 3 3
3
+ +
3
.+
* 3
=
)
$ * + + *
.
* 4
** +
-
+ +
:
9.* $
5
$3 +
(1!
# 1 # $
3 +
(1!
** ' 3 +
(1!
.
* 4
+
+
#
* +
* 4
+
5 + * 4
**
*+
+ .
+ **
.
+ .
** ** .+
+ + * * +
+
:
+ .
** ** . .* * +
5 +
*+
+ . ** = **
*
+
* *+
.* + ** * .
(!
*
<
&!'(
(!!(
+
9 .
.+
<
&777
#8;
)
.+
+
$
"
Lok Adalat CWP No. 3777 of 1986 Moti Ram and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others Present :, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Devinder Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
This writ petition has become infructuous. The order dated March 23, 2001, shows that all the petitioners except petitioners Nos. 15, 21, 24 and 27 were regularized. Petitioner No. 15 Dharam Pal has moved an application for withdrawal of the writ petition on his behalf. That application is fixed before the High Court on October 31, 2002. The High Court will pass appropriate orders thereon. Petitioner No. 21 Yash Pal Singh and petitioner No. 24 family have filed separate CWP No. 10150 of 1999. Necessary orders would be passed in that writ petition. Petitioner No. 27 Babu Ram stands regularized, as stated.
Hence this petition has become infructuous and is dismissed, as stated above.
Copies of the order be given to the counsel for the parties.
Sd/, Dated : October 10, 2002 (A.L. Bahri) President (Mrs. Reva Gandhi) Member"
( .
*
.
*
.
.
*+ . * 4
)
*+ *
* . . = * 4
.
((
.
.
* 4
** . .
* 4
=
3
*
.
* 4
) . .* = .
**
** .
*+ 2
** *
.
*+
.
*+ *
(& 5 +
.3
+ (!!(
.
*+ . * 4 . . . = *+
..* $
** .*
<
&!'(
(!!(
** *
;D
. ** *
+
6
3
+
('
.
("
**
+ *
(;
+
*
*
3* (4$$ &3 && kanchan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No