Recently, the Supreme Court examined a crucial question: Can years of service be ignored merely due to technical breaks, especially when similarly placed employees have been treated differently? The case brings into focus the balance between administrative discretion and the principle of equality in public employment.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the appointment of the Appellant as ad hoc peons and clerks in the Finance Department of the State of Punjab in the mid-1990s. At the relevant time, the State had issued executive instructions regulating ad hoc appointments and their continuation in service. Over time, various policy instructions were introduced to regularise employees appointed prior to a specified cut-off date who had continued in service. Despite rendering long years of service, the Appellants were issued show cause notices stating that they were not covered under these policies due to breaks in service ranging from a few days to several months, and their services were ultimately terminated. Their challenge before the High Court failed at all stages on the ground that their appointments were not made through a proper selection process, thereby invoking concerns relating to public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Appellant :
The counsel for the Appellant contended that they had served for more than a decade and were fully covered under the State’s regularisation policies. The counsel argued that the denial of regularisation, despite similarly situated employees having been granted such a benefit, violated Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, on the other hand, contended that the Appellant had no enforceable right to regularisation as their appointments were not made through a proper selection process, relying on the principle laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, which restricts the regularisation of irregular appointments. It was further argued that the breaks in their service rendered them ineligible under the policy framework.
Observation of the Court :
The Court, upon examining the record, found the State’s stand to be unsustainable and inconsistent with its own policy framework. It noted that the Appellant possessed the requisite qualifications and were working against existing vacancies. Addressing the issue of breaks in service, the Court clearly observed that such breaks could not be used mechanically to deny substantive rights, particularly when the employees had been repeatedly re-engaged and had continued to discharge their duties.
The Court further took note of the undisputed position that several similarly situated employees had already been granted regularisation despite having longer breaks in service. In this context, the Court emphasised the principle of parity and non-arbitrariness, holding that: “The State cannot selectively deny the application of the policy to the Appellants, who are identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification.”
The Court also made a crucial observation regarding the nature of service breaks, stating that: “The breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment.”
It was further highlighted that long years of service cannot be disregarded merely by labelling the initial appointment as ad hoc, especially when the employees continued in service and worked to the satisfaction of the authorities. The Court thus reaffirmed that administrative discretion must operate within the bounds of fairness and equality, and cannot be exercised in a discriminatory or selective manner.
Decision of the Court :
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court as well as the dismissal order passed against the Appellants. The Appellants were directed to be treated as in continuous service without a break, and the State was directed to regularise their services in accordance with the applicable policy. The Court further granted continuity of service along with consequential benefits, while limiting actual financial arrears up to the present.
Case Title: Prem Chand & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12139 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocate for the Appellant: AOR Tushar Bakshi.
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Shadan Farasat, D.A.G. Talha Abdul Rehman, AOR Nupur Kumar, Adv. Arkaprava Dass.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
