State Must Consider Regularising Employees Who Have Completed 10 Yrs Of Service As Per SC Ruling In Uma Devi Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the state is duty-bound to consider the regularisation of employees who have been working for 10 years in accordance with the Supreme Court's directive in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi.

The Court disposed of a batch of 151 pleas filed against the Haryana Government by different employees seeking regularisation of their services from retrospective date. The Court noted that some of them were working for more than three decades on a contract basis.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "The petitioners were not regularized due to lack of sanctioned posts, pending litigation etc. These employees continued to work and few of them, as admitted by both sides, came to be regularized during 2014-16. The respondent at its pleasure created few posts and adjusted few employees. It was job of the State to create posts. The respondent uninterruptedly is availing services of the petitioners for decades which shows that work is available and there is need of workforce."

The Court further said that the State despite availing services cannot claim that regular posts are not available and Posts are created by the State and not by some unknown force.

It added that the Court cannot ask the State to create or abolish a post or structure/re-structure a cadre. Nevertheless, the State cannot ignore the mandate of the Supreme Court. "In the wake of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi case, State was duty bound to consider all the employees who by the end of 2006 had already completed service of 10 years without Court intervention."

A batch of pleas were filed by the employees of different Organizations of Haryana like the Municipal Committee, and Public Sector Companies which are engaged in the generation or distribution of power. The employees were engaged as part-time, contractual or adhoc workers.

The claim for regularisation was based on different policies issued in 1996, 2003 and 2011.

The Court noted that in Uma Devi's case the Apex Court in 2006 deprecated the practice of employing temporary/part-time or contractual employees though it held that in exigency, the State can make appointments on a contract basis. The Court held that regularization of contractual or part-time employees would amount to the legalization of back door entrants.

After examining the claim under different policies, the Court said that no petitioner would be regularized as per the policy of 1996 and the State authorities shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners, within 6 months from today, who are claiming regularization as per the policy of 2003.

"If any of the petitioners is found eligible to regularization as per policy of 2003, he shall be entitled to arrears from the date of filing petition before this Court. The arrears shall not carry interest. If any petitioner has already retired, his/her pensionary benefits will also be fixed/revised apart from arrears from the date of filing petition before this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not declared that policy of 2003 is applicable to each instrumentality of the State Government," the Court said.

It held further that the respondent shall consider and decide the claim of petitioners, within 6 months from today, who are claiming regularization as per the policy of 2011.

 The judge also clarified that the petitioners who are not eligible to benefit from the policy of 2003 or 2011 shall be considered as per the 2024 Act and their claim would also be reconsidered as per the policy of 2014 after the final decision of the Supreme Court.

While disposing of the plea the Court added that the State in 2007 in view of the ruling in Uma Devi's case withdrew its earlier policies of regularization and introduced fresh policy in 2011 which was strictly in terms of Uma Devi.

Hence, there was no reason to bring into force notification dated 18.06.2014 which is contradictory to Uma Devi's case.

Title: Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order