Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053273
CWP-8836-2016 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053273
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
WP-8836-2016 (O&M)
C
Date of decision: 20.04.2024
Mohan Lal
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. V.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. The prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the impugned orders dated 12.04.2016, AnnexureP-9,passedbyrespondentNo.2 and orders dated 22.04.2016 and 04.05.2016, Annexure P-10 and P-11, respectively, passed by respondent No. 3,withfurtherprayertoregularizethe services of the petitioner. 2. Learnedcounselwouldsubmitthatthepetitionerwasappointedas part-timeSweeperon01.10.1994withsalaryofRs.2500/-permonthandison thevergeofretirement,buthisservicesareyettoberegularized.Consequently, hefiledapetition,CWP-22212-2015,whichwasdisposedofon15.10.2015by this Court with directions to the respondents to decide the same, however,he was denied vide the impugned orders. He prays for disposal of the present petition, being covered by the decisions in Kanta Rani vs. State of Punjab andothers,CWPNo.1933of2014decidedon28.10.2014andSukhdevKaur vs. State of Punjab, CWP 12199 of 2000, decided on 23.09.2002, against which the SLP-4772-2003filedbytheStatestandsdismissedvideorderdated 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 23:52:33 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053273 CWP-8836-2016 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053273 -2- 31.03.2003. 3. TheoperativeportionofKantaRani(supra),inwhichunderlike circumstances, services of the petitioner working as a part time peon-cum-sweeper were ordered to be regularized, reads thus: " The second argument of the ld. Counsel for the respondents that there is no sanctioned post of sweeper in the office of respondent No.4 is also liable to be rejected. The petitioner has been continuously working with respondent No.4 since 1984. This necessarily implies that thereisneedforasweeperintheofficeofrespondentNo.4. In fact,judicialnoticecanbetakenofthefactthatinevery office there is necessity of at least one sweeper, and in bigger offices the requirement would be more. It has not beenstatedbytherespondentsthatapartfromthepetitioner there are any other sweepers working in the office of respondent No. 4. I n Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Hon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatwhenthereisneedforthe creationofposts,thefailureoftheexecutivegovernmentto apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State... xx xx xx hirdly, it has been contended that the petitioner was a T part-time sweeper, hence her case was not covered by the instructionsdated23.1.2001(AnnexureP-9)whichareonly in relation to work charged/ daily wage employees. The petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition has stated thatshe has been working throughout as peon-cum-sweeper in the office of the Executive Officer, Block Samiti Dina Nagar during full office hours from 9.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. This fact regarding the number of hours of duty/work of the petitioner has not been specifically denied. There is onlya bald denial stating that itisincorrectthatthepetitionerhas been working throughout as peoncum-sweeper and it has been asserted that the petitioner has been engaged as part-time sweeper. From this, it is clearthatthoughtermed part-time, the petitioner has been working in the office of respondentNo.4asafulltimeemployee.Shehascontinued to work in the same capacity for over 30 years now. Termingheraspart-timeismanifestlyunjust.Thus,ithasto be held that the petitioner was liable to have been regularised both in terms of the circular letter dated 4.3.1999and23.1.2001andtheactionoftherespondentsin denying her the benefit of regularisation is illegal. 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 23:52:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053273 CWP-8836-2016 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053273 -3- xx xx xx hus, in my opinion the petitioner's case for regularisation T has been wrongly rejected. She was eligible to have been regularised under each one of the three policies referredto above. It is manifest that the petitioner hasbeenextremely unfairly dealt with. For what should have flowed to her in normal course, she has been forced to repeatedly knock at thedoorsoftheauthoritiesandasalastresortapproachthe Court. While making her work full time, the respondents have persisted in terming her as part-time, taking shelter undertheletterofappointment.Thisissheerexploitationof the poor petitioner." 4. Relevant paras of Sukhdev Kaur (supra), wherein a part time sweeper was granted regularization, read thus: " 10. Admittedly, the petitioners belongtoapoorsectionof the society. They have been working on the posts of Sweepers for a substantially long period of 10 years or more. Nothing has been placed on record which may even prima facie show that the petitioners have been found wantingintheperformanceoftheirduties.Stillfurther,itis not disputed that there isacontinuingneedforthepostsof Sweepers as it is necessary to have someone to clean the class-rooms and toilets etc. in the educational institutions. 11. In the background of this factual position, the short questionthatarisesforconsiderationis-Canthepetitioners be denied the relief of regularisation merely because their names had not been sponsored by the respective Employment Exchanges at the time of their entry into service ? 12. To answer this question, we have repeatedly askedMr. D.V. Sharma, if the State Government had issued any instructions to the Departments requiring that the posts of PartTimeSweepersshallbefilleduponlyaftersubmission of a requisition to the Employment Exchange.Thecounsel has not been able to point out anything from the record of thesecaseswhichmayindicatethatitwasnecessaryforthe Departments of the Government to ask for recommendations from the Employment Exchange. Still further, it is not disputed that the requirement for notification of thevacanciestotheEmploymentExchanges is not a mandatory pre-condition for filling up the postsin different servicesoftheGovernment.Infact,areferenceto Section 4(4) of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 clearly indicates that the provisions have not to be "deemed to impose any obligationuponanyemployertorecruitanypersonthrough the Employment Exchange to fill any vacancy merely because that vacancy has beennotifiedunder"sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4. The provision clearly militates against any plea of a mandatory requirement of law under 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 23:52:34 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053273 CWP-8836-2016 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:053273 -4- hichtheemployermayberequiredtonotifythevacancies w to the Employment Exchange. 13. In view of the factual position that there is nothing on record to show that the departments of the State Government had ever notified the vacancies of Part Time SweepersunderSection4totheEmploymentExchangesor that any instructions had beenissuedtotheDepartmentsto notify the vacancies to the Employment Exchanges, the condition as now sought to be imposed is apparently arbitrary and unfair. xx xx xx 15. On a consideration of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned orders are not just and fair. The petitioners havebeenmadetoworkforalongtimewithoutevenbeing placed in a regular scale. In fact, they are being paid a meagresumrangingfromRs.375/-toRs.600/-permonth. In the present day when the cost of living has gone very high, it is not a fair wage. 16.Inviewoftheabove,thewritpetitionsareallowed.The impugnedordersaresetaside.Therespondentsaredirected toconsidertheclaimofthepetitionersfortheregularisation of their services. They would be placed in a regular time scaleofpay.Theconsequentialreliefsshallalsobegivento them.Theneedfulshallbedonewithinonemonthfromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. LearnedStatecounselwasunabletocontrovertthefactualposition and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed inKanta RaniandSukhdevKaur(supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 2 0.04.2024 Hemant hether speaking/reasoned W : es / No Y Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 23:52:34 :::