In A First, Punjab & Haryana High Court Suggests State To Use Artificial Intelligence To Identify 'Similar Cases' Which Are Already Settled By It

Observing that "litigation is unnecessarily coming up" despite the settled law, in a first the Punjab & Haryana High Court has suggested the state government to take benefit of artificial intelligence to search the similar matters pending so that they can be identified and disposed of soon.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said, "this Court finds that in several cases, litigation is unnecessarily coming up before this Court in spite of settled law. The State Government is directed to examine all the cases which are pending before this Court in relation to the aforesaid issue and take steps for disposal of such cases."

The Court further added that similar cases can be taken up before the Lok Adalat and by giving a list to the High Court, "benefit of artificial intelligence for getting the search of such matters can also be done by the State Government at their own level, so that similar cases may also be disposed of accordingly."

These observations were made in response to the plea filed by a woman who was not given the benefit of regularisation of service only because the circular issued by the Punjab government did not mention "Department of High Education" for regularisation. 

The Court noted that the position was already settled in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, (2010), where it was held,

"...any action of the State which amounts to unfair discrimination will have to be redressed by this Court as a primary administrator...I find no substance in the stand of the respondent State and any distinction sought to be drawn artificially between the departments of the Government by excluding the Welfare Department, Punjab would hold no water in the face of mandates of twin facts of unfair discrimination and reasonableness in Articles 14 of the COI...I also find no reasonable classification in selecting a few departments for preferential treatment for the purposes of regularization of workmen who have suffered long drawn out exploitative Employment for over well over two decades.”

The Court further opined that the petitioner fulfils all the requirements of the policy relating to regularisation and the only impediment is that the name of the department was not in the list.

In the light of the above the Court allowed the plea and said, "having noticed the judgments passed by this Court (supra), this Court is satisfied that there can be no discrimination between the various departments of the State Government with regard to the policy of regularization issued as a one-time measure to give relief to the daily wagers who have been appointed by a transparent method of selection, though on contract basis or on ad hoc basis."

The respondents shall pass appropriate orders for regularization of the petitioner on the post of clerk from the date she completes three years of her service as ad hoc/contractual clerk and also give her all the consequential benefits, added the Court.

Appearance: Advocates Manu K. Bhandari, Manu Gaur, Rohit Kataria, Advocates for the petitioner.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 199