Abhey Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS


  




 ! !"#$#%& '

()*#+)!,(#%-) ! # #%!* .!*$/$ (  ! *,%%0 )!*$ !$1%0!% $
 

 

     

   





  

 

  





 

"

###  



   !

$





 %

% ()
*+"



("

!(
) , 

   

  % , -   & 

.  

 ,  %



   



    % &

 

 

 



  





,

 



 



&

  ()
*+"

,

+/0'

$ 
*1)

&

 2  (3
*1)   2



$ 
**)

&   45  4% 7   

  8

 &%



("

!(
)



 %

5 )+ 

% ,    - %

  6  :-

 :7 &



  % %

% 
/ ("

!(
/ 65  '!7   & %







  

     ,  %

 )+ % ()
*+"

 ("

!(
)



&  % -

  & 





,

&

$

   

 

%  %



 , 

) $  

  )+

,%  %   &  

  % ; 

 %

 %

$ 

 

& 



  % ;

   %,  % ;   



  

$    ,

% ;  &%



 % & % ;

 

 

<  

% ;

  !(() 

&  
( !(() %  

  (* !(()  % ;

0 



 %    ()
*+"

 (* !(()



5 !+

%    & =  % ;%   % ;  
( !(()

 %

  ,

 & 5

  ,% %,

8  



  & 

#2#311!3 45

# 3!0$ "  

# $ 

%&

 "'

'

%

( 0!"#0!0  %

4

46 

 %  

 

)    %,



%

> %  '

"35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized.

It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."

%  % =   

  , 

 > , 



 

   



/

   &  '% ;   % 

 ,





 "

%))*+ %& ,*,,



'

 

%& $-

'

%

 # $  .

 / -.

 "

( '

0'

'

% )1*,,*,, '

"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand.

In the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service.

Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." <

 % ;  

  )   

 

  &

$



)+

8   

> %

 0

2( 

%& 3 4 '

%

 # $  / #

"

'

%

(  ,**5 
)1*5( 


( 

 % ;    

 %

, % 



(  5 

 

? % & ,



  &  

 

 

     % ;%  

:  % ;  &

.  

 ,  % & &  & "   0

$6!(





   

% ; % ;  
( !(() , 





& 5







  & 

"   0

$6!

    % ; 

 % ;  
( !(()    =  

  

  %
( !(()

 % ;  

 5 %   

 



 5

 %



&

+  

 

.

  

 &   



 & ,

/3, '6

(7((

kanchan

 √ Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No √ Whether reportable : Yes/No