Depriving People Of Regular Employment Is Exploitation, Long Service Of Two Decades Cannot Be Considered Part-Time: P&H High Court
Flagging the "exploitation" of the State government by tagging Class-IV employees as part-time workers, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that long service of two decades cannot be assumed to be a "part-time service."
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "Unemployment in the nation is well known. A long service of two decades cannot be assumed to be a part-time service. It appears that appellant uninterruptedly availed service of respondents for two decades and in the guise of part-time employment, deprived them from their valuable right of pay and other allowances."
The court stated that the State instead of making appointments on a regular basis has adopted the practice of making appointments on a part-time or contract basis.
On account of mass unemployment, the people are ready to work for a small amount and on a part-time or contract basis. The State is a model employer and is not expected to exploit its citizens. Paying a small amount and depriving people from regular employment is nothing more than exploitation, the bench said further.
The division bench opined that "State should amend its policy to make appointments on contract or part-time basis."
These observations came in response to an appeal filed by the Haryana Government, challenging the order passed by the single judge which directed the grant of retiral benefits (old pension scheme) to class-IV employees who worked for two decades and were still considered part-time employees.
The State counsel submitted that the respondents (Class-IV employees) were initially appointed on a part-time basis. They worked for very few hours a day. It was stated that the jurisdictional authorities like the Principal/Headmaster of a school made appointments of peons on an ad hoc basis and they worked for 3-4 hours a day, thus could not be considered as daily wagers or contractual employees.
"Rule 3.17-A which has been invoked by learned Single Judge specifically excludes service of part-time employees, thus, learned Single Judge has mis-read Rule 3.17-A. There are almost 5,000 employees who were initially appointed on part-time basis and thereafter regularized. Counting of their service for pensionary benefits would create additional burden upon the State Exchequer," added the Sr. DAG for Haryana.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that in one of the pleas, a peon was appointed in 1992 in a government school and he worked for two decades without interruption from 1992 to 2012. However, his service was regularised in 2012 and he retired in 2015.
The new pension scheme was introduced in 2008 by the State Government and his service was governed by it. The Court rejected the contention of the State that the employees rendered service as worked charged.
"Neither from the pleadings nor from impugned order, it can be culled out that respondent had rendered service as work charged. He had worked with a school which operates around the year. If it is assumed that respondent was employed as work charged still his service cannot be ignored because he had worked for almost two decades without interruption. It is difficult as well as highly improbable to believe that a Government school has appointed a peon or water-carrier for 3-4 hours a day. A peon or water-carrier is required for as long hours as teachers and students remain in the school," the Court added.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others the Court said that the constitution bench, "deprecated practice of appointment of employees on part-time, daily wages or contract basis."
The bench observed that the foundation on which theConstitution rests is equality of status and opportunity and making appointments on part-time or contract basis amounts to a violation of the object of 'social and economic justice as well as 'equality of status and opportunity' enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution.
In light of the above, the appeal filed by the Haryana Government was dismissed.
Title: State of Haryana & Ors. v. Jai Bhagwan [other connected matters]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 178