High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/11105/2000allowed

Shri Pal Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2026-02-13Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil18 pages

#! !

! $ % ! "

& '() *#+ #! (, *-#+ +.) ////

# 0 ! ! !certiorari !1 22333 4+

5 &67 % ! % 6

8# !

% ! 233 Contentions On behalf of Petitioner 9 % !!

! % :

:5 !!!;

-<= & >!! :5 >!!#& * #* ( 6 60 -

33 # %

! +

5 &6) % =

0 ?

$ !5 % =

0 ! ! !! ! ;=&># * # () *#+

! 33 @233 !

8 ! ! # !

%- 33 9

! 3 ( 6 60 - -

!! !! ! ;

- = & >!!

8 !33 2 33 4+

5 &6 7#

!,6626:;6

22333

% % B 6

8 % $6C * . !) #= & =

% :5 >!!#* . ! @. !) ( ) *# +

%! ! 223334+

5 &67# !33 ,66

6:;6 6

33#332#333

!. & "

$),@.+@ 2#

! #

* ! &

% & * D &+ #3 # * . & *

!!! ! ! % +

# +

+ !3% ) .

! & * - ! 3 * %1

) & , + 33 % & * ! !

- ! % 5 * 4 7#

'6 "The persons employed by the Panchayat Samiti before the Ist day of April, 1973 and serving them on the commencement of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973 shall continue to serve on the same terms and conditions on which they were employed by the Panchayat Samiti until they are absorbed in the Government service or retired in such manner as may be prescribed."

% % 3 % * . !) =

= ! & * # 3

% %% . %. !

!0 ! #

% "(iv) These employees will be treated as Government Servants from the date they join provincialized posts and no benefit towards seniority etc. will be given/allowed.

(vi) They will be governed by Govt./State Service Rules and they will be entitled to all the benefits like Govt. employees, in future." 2 %# +

! #

8 233 *$ * $#& * *$ ; * 4+

5 &6<&6

7 >

& 0 %

! 33 = & = ! !( 6 60 - ! 33 4+

5 &637 3 $ % % !! On behalf of Respondents 10.

Notice of motion was issued on 24.08.2000 and after the respondents filed the written statement dated 17.05.2001, the petition was admitted on 11.12.2001 with the interim protection that the operation of impugned order dated 08.08.1999 (Annexure P-10) shall remain stayed. 11.

Learned State counsel argued on the strength of written statement justifying de-regularizing of the petitioner on the ground that he is not a Government employee and was appointed by the Panchayat Samiti on 12.03.1991 which would be a local body and instructions issued by the Government of Haryana for regularization dated 18.03.1996. 12.

Learned State counsel also lays much stress to the fact that the petitioner was erroneously regularized by the Government of Haryana

Development Department on 06.11.1996 but later on while rectifying the mistake de-regularized services of the petitioner vide order dated 18.08.1999 on the question of discrimination though an attempt was made to clarify that two other employees of Panchayat Samiti namely Sada Nand and Phool Chand were also regularized due to clerical error but on coming to know about the said mistake, notices have been issued to both the employees for deregularization on 25.01.2001 and legal action has also been taken against them as per letter.

13.

On merits submissions on behalf of the State is to the effect that respondent No.1 has given approval to appoint one Mali cum chowkidar and one part time Sweeper through employment exchange office at the DC rates, whereas rest of the submissions are repetitions of submissions as recorded hereinabove.

14.

To the parity claimed by the petitioner being similarly placed as Banta Singh, the State would distinguish the case of the petitioner stating that Banta Singh was regularized vide order dated 12.06.1998 by the Development Department, Government of Haryana as he was a daily wager Government employee, therefore, is covered under the instructions/policy dated 08.04.1996. The arguments were concluded on behalf of the respondent/State with the submission that the de-regularization order dated (Annexure P-10) is legal and correct while praying for dismissal of the present petition. 15.

During the course of hearing, a status report was called upon and Block Development and Panchayat Officer filed an affidavit of Krishan Lal, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kurukshetra holding the additional charge of BDPO, Shahbad District Kurukshetra and clarify on the facts that Shri Sada Nand and other similarly situated employee alongwith the petitioner, who were working on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar, were

& regularized by the Joint Secretary, to Government of Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department Chandigarh vide order dated 06.11.1996. The case of Sadanand was also reconsidered and a notice was issued dated 24.01.2001 to which a reply was filed. The said reply stands rejected qua Sadanand as well but he preferred a CWP-9691-2001 for setting the order of reconsideration and impugned order dated 06.07.2001, while he claimed regularization of services as per policy decision dated 06.04.1990. The impugned order of termination dated 06.07.2001 was stayed by the High Court in CWP-9691-2001 Sada Nand vs. State of Haryana & Ors. During the pendency of said writ petition, he retired from the services and the petition was disposed off having been rendered infructuous. 16.

In order to adjudicate the question involved before this Court status and nomenclature of Panchayat Samiti as well as its legal entity needs to be tested on the stone of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in order to address arguments raised by the learned state counsel that the petitioner was not an employee of the State Government but only of the Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, the policy for regularization for services dated 08.04.1996 would not apply to his case. In that endeavour on 09.09.2025 after hearing partly arguments State was called upon to file an affidavit categorically stating that how much funding is made by the State Government to the Panchayat Samiti and whether it exercises superintending deep and pervasive control on its functioning.

17.

In response to the above said direction, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahabad, District Kurukshetra holding additional charge as that of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, District Kurukshetra filed an affidavit dated 17.09.2025.

2 )

3 + #%! 0

- 5 ! ! # ! #

! ! % ! #

()* +*,) $&-'$ + &

%& * D & + #3 !# % !& * -!

A % * . !) # = = # !% !& * 3 .

-''

& (./0123456/7(8 : :5 !!!;

-= & >!!6 6:5 >!!#& * # * E! $-- --$ > % = & =

! ( 6 60 - ! 334

7 $--& 6!!

* !

! 1 9$--& . !) @ !

! !

--& :!! ! B

. 9%--& A

! ( 6 60 - % --& , % . --'

--9 *

---

C * . !) #= & = # !

! E.&"

&--& : 9--& 99--- 2;1<,*7 487*8% C * #= & = #6

! %9 $ ! % 0 E ! 22333 % 0 ' ! % % : $ !6

9 ()* +*,) &' >! *$ 0&$3 3!! % *$

E -- 0 ! !! * !

!& * '- +!! ! % ;

-= & >!! 0

20. Issues for Determination !

! '

●

#$%#$%&&&

( )

*% +

! 1 ! & * ! * ! !

& * + & *

& ,

% ) & , + #33 ! & 9F! 0 4+ 6>7# & % ! !6.

! # 5 ! !

- # ! !

6 * 0 -. / 0 % 1 2 - &)3 $43# 5 =4)3*8 (1)348/)/*>? + '

5. The meaning of the word "authority" given in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which can be applicable, is "a public administrative agency or corporation having quasi4governmental powers and authorised to administer a revenue4producing public enterprise." This dictionary meaning of the word "authority" is clearly wide enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi4 Governmental functions. The expression "other authorities" is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute and functioning within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India; and we do not see any reason to narrow down this meaning in the context in which the words "other authorities" are used in Article 12 of the Constitution.

( A 4 7# & * ! !% G H

+ 9 #5! % !

# !

1 % ! !

G* H+& * #% % # ! "

% 1 !G* H

-%5% %

6&3&7 ($&

# . 9 % :

6&$7 3

* 0

9. The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may now be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority's case . These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities", it must be realised that

it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government with the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority's case as follows :

(1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government."

(2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character."

(3) "It may also be a relevant factor......... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected."

(4) "Existence of "deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality."

(5) "If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government.

(6) "Specifically, if a department of Govt. is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government".

If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority's case, be an 'authority' and, therefore, 'State' within the meaning of the expression in Article 12.

!!% 0

; : , %

6##7 # '

"67. It will be useful to understand what the terms 4 instrumentality, agency and authorities mean before embarking upon a review of judicial decisions dealing with the principal issue which arises for our consideration.

68. Black's Law Dictionary (Seventh Edition) defines 'instrumentality' to mean "a means or agency through which a function of another entity is accomplished, such as a branch of a governing body". 'Agency' is defined as "a fiduciary relationship

created by express or implied contract or by law, in which one party (the agent) may act on behalf of another party (the principal) and bind that other party by words or actions". Thus instrumentality and agency are the two terms which to some extent overlap in their meaning; 'instrumentality' includes 'means' also, which 'agency' does not, in its meaning. 'Quasi4Governmental agency' is "a government4sponsored enterprise or Corporation (sometimes called a Government4controlled corporation)". Authority, as Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) defines, is "the person or persons in whom Government or command is vested; often in the plural".

The applicable meaning of the word "authority" given in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, is 'a public administrative agency or corporation having quasi4Governmental powers and authorised to administer a revenue4producing public enterprise'. This was quoted with approval by Constitution Bench in RSEB's case (infra) wherein the Bench held 4 "This dictionary meaning of the word "authority" is clearly wide enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out Governmental or quasi4Governmental functions.

The expression 'other authorities is wide enough to include within it every authority created by a statute and functioning within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India; and we do not see any reason to narrow down this meaning in the context in which the words "other authorities" are used in Article 12 of the Constitution".

R.D. Shetty (supra), Ajay Hasia ( supra) !!% 0 ;

Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) 0 5 & * ! !%

! *

+ ! !

2 * 0 Ajay Hasia (supra)

!! !

! % :5 # !

3 ;

, "

" % # & * 5 # ) & , + #33 # & 9F ! 0 ! 9 9

# % % 5 % + % 0 ; -. / 0 % 1 2'

- &)3 $43# : , 6 7#% % !

+ # ! !

! ;

% :5 & * %! & * '

! * 0 . ! # 5 !

# ! % !

# !

& , ! -+5 9

1637*+ /,<3 + 3(<()8(2# -' %# %

"Institutions engaged in matters of high public interest and performing public functions are, by virtue of the nature of the functions performed, government agencies."

% & * % ! !

$ 6 + # 1 !

;

. 9 6 7% # * . 5 ! & * E ! % # # -E ! # # E # #

#% 5 !

#! # # ! !

! ;

% ! # ! 5 # ! ! # !

* 0 . * 0

1 1 %

! # 5 !

! * . # & *

!!% * 0 . # ! % ! ! % #

% !# & * ! !

- !

! ! % "

! +50

!. 9 6 7'

"Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost the entire expenditure, it affords some indication of governmental character."

+ # ! ! * !

# !

% %!

# % . 9

6 7

: , 6 7#

% & * #! !

* # %

% * # 0 & * !

. 9 6 7 !! : , 6 79 ! $@& *

! * !

!G* H

+ ! 0 !9 *%+

#$%#$%&&&

( )

> 0

9 $ & * ! * !+ !

0 !9 # !

! B! . %

0 # !#1 5 #!

. #

% 22333

! ! ( 6 60 - 33

# % : :5 #

% = 0 #?

%- ! . !) ! !

! 233 # % !

33 9

& # ! # ( 6 60 -#

!33

2 33 #

! ,6626:;6

!% C * . !) #=

& = # 33 @233 0 1

# ! 33 #

33# 332 333# . & "

%4),@.+@ 27

% ! ! %

! #% % ! * 2 +!

! # 22333# 6

% & * . # ! 0 #

% 3 " # * !

% 233 # 5

1 % ! % 33 333# % !

& %1

! -! +

! ! 33

!! 33 #

! # # %

* # 6

22333 !!! !%

! " !

* 1 % * 5 ! !

% %+ ! *

! !

# ! 5! > # *$ #& * ; * #

! 6

! @# % ! 0 % ! * !6

333# 5

+ !

0 !9

A # ! ! & * G* H

+ # %

% % . ! & * !

% 233 !

6 -

* 6

' # 1 !

% ) !!

0 ! % !

* !

% !

- ! ! & % #5 ! # % # 0 ! !%

& * % % !

+ ! 0 !9 # !

! + 6

! #

# - !

1 %!

# # % % !

# !%!! 9 # !# % ! !!%

+ # 223334+

5 &67 % 1 #

!33 !

1 % ! !

!5 # ! # % ! #!

! !5

% ! I

! ;! # 0

9 * # # %

! #% % 0

2 & 47#!

%!!

$& Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No