"Wrongful Means To Extract Maximum From Poor", High Court Directs Haryana To Regularise Class-IV Employees Working For 30 Yrs

Calling it a glaring example to demonstrate "callous approach" of State, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed Haryana government to pass necessary order to regularize the services of Class-IV employees who are working under it as a daily wager since 30 years.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "the instant case is a glaring example to demonstrate lethargic and callous approach of State and its instrumentalities, who are satisfied with engagement of petitioners on daily wage basis for the obvious fact that the financial liability is minimum as against the responsibility and primary duty bestowed with it under the Constitution of India, as envisaged under Articles 14 & 16 that no action of the State should be arbitrary and it shall also not smell of discrimination and inequality."

In fact, such act on the part of State authorities tantamount to unfair labor practice and wrongful means to extract maximum from a poor class-IV category employee and in return giving them the possible minimum under the garb of DC rates, added the court.

The bench noted that in case, the petitioners had been regularized in time (2003) under the policy, "they might have earned not only the promotion, but annual increments and allowances like dearness allowance, medical allowance, house rent allowance etc.," of which they are being deprived of, which has resulted into creation of inequality among the regular cadre employees with the petitioners not only for emoluments and allowances, but for sense of security in service as well.

These observations came in response to the plea filed by Class-IV employees, seeking directions to State to regularize their services.

The petitioners were working as a daily wager under Municipal Corporation, Faridabad on various posts viz. Beldar, Masson, Electrician Helpers, etc. and were appointed as such since the year 1993 to 1995.

It was contended that the services of the similarly-situated employees have already been regularized but the petitioners have been left out for the reasons best known to the respondents.

After examining the records, the court noted that, "the case of the petitioners evidently has been rejected for regularization of their services for not fulfilling the requisite qualification holding them not entitled as per policy dated 01.10.2003."  

It referred to Apex Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, in which it was held that, "by and large what emerges is that regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy, but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non-available posts should not be taken note of for regularization."

Justice Moudgil said that, in the instant case, admittedly petitioners are working since 1993 i.e., more than 3 decades as on date, but for one or the other reason taking excuses, the respondent-State has absolved itself from the duty as a socialistic welfare State, which otherwise tantamount to unfair labor practice or unfair means on its part to avail the services of such petitioners to their own advantage, who have devoted more than 60 % of life span for a meagre amount, which may not be even sufficient to maintain themselves what to talk of their dependents in the family.

The court also rejected the contention of the State that the petitioners did not qualify the essential qualification, which is Middle pass and above as per 1998 Services rules, stating that they were employed as per 1982 Rules and then the essential qualification for Class-IV employees was “read and write” only.

Adding that the petitioners are working for the last more than 30 years which shows that there was regular need of their services, it said, "if the State Government/respondent No.3 have failed to make regular appointments in the absence of sanctioned posts, the petitioners cannot be put to harassment on that account, having no fault of theirs."

It further observed that, if the State is not willing or eager to create posts enhancing the number of sanctioned posts in that cadre, the petitioners cannot be put to disadvantageous position in their service career and life, otherwise such a practice would violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from loosing sanctity of Articles 14 & 16.

Questioning the State on continuing such employment, the court said, "It is itself sufficient to infer that there was no sincere effort on the part of the State to make regular appointments."

The court noted that if judgment in Uma Devi's case alongwith subsequently enunciated case laws is collectively read, it nowhere indicates that employees like the petitioners in the instant writ petition would not be regularized, despite the fact that they are in service for last three decades. 

 Violation of Articles 14 & 16 

The court said that not regularizing the services of the petitioners amounted to violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution considering the admitted fact that the petitioners are working with the respondents since the year 1993-95.

Public employment is a facet of right to equality envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution. The State is although a model employer, its right to create posts and recruit people emanates from the statutes or statutory rules and/or Rules framed under the provision appended to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is obligatory on the State that the recruitment Rules are framed with a view to give equal opportunity to all its citizens, the bench observed.

The court also referred to Apex Court's decision in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., in which considering Uma Devi's case, it ordered to regularize the service of those employees, who have worked for 10 years or more along with all other benefits to which they became entitled.

Justice Moudgil concluded that the petitioners could not be denied the benefit of regularization of services when similarly placed employees had been granted the benefit.

Accordingly, the bench directed the State to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of service in view of the policy and to pass necessary orders regularizing their services, within a period of one month. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all the benefits of regularization and consequential relief to which they are eligible including the arrears of salary, it said.

The court further directed to pay 6 percent interest per annum on the arrears from the date they became due till the date of its realization to which the petitioners are found entitled on regularization into service. 

Appearance: RS Randhawa, Advocate for petitioners

Dimple Jain, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1, 2 & 4

Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondent No.3

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 250

Case Title: Ram Rattan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Click here to read/download order