Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhey Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 25 July, 2022
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(213) CWP No. 3173 of 2016
Date of Decision : 25.07.2022
Shri Abhey Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Ms. Suman Rani, Advocate for
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that
though the petitioner has worked with the respondent-Nigam starting from
01.03.1976 till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013 but, the
petitioner has not been treated as a regular employee by the respondent-
department so as to deny him the service benefits including the benefit of
ACP Rules as well as the retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the
prayer of the petitioner has not been stated in clear terms but actually the
prayer of the petitioner is that he should be treated regular in service
keeping in view the various policies, which have been issued by the State of
Haryana, which Policies have already been adopted by the respondent-
1 of 7
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
Nigam and have been made applicable upon the employees concerned.
As per the facts mentioned in the petition, the petitioner was
appointed as Mate on 01.03.1976 on the basic pay of `75/-. In the year
1983, the petitioner was promoted as Work Mason on 01.04.1983 and
thereafter, as Work Supervisor. In the year 1993, the petitioner was
transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer (Grid), Rohtak, wherein,
he worked on the post of Assistant Foreman. While working on the said
post, petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. The
prayer of the petitioner is that though, he has worked with the respondent-
Nigam for approximately 37 years, he has not been granted any benefit in
respect of the said service in terms of the grant of Assured Career
Progression Scheme (in short 'ACP Scheme') benefits as well as the
pensionary benefits after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation.
Petitioner raised the said grievance by serving upon the respondents a legal
notice on 15.06.2015 (Annexure P-2) but as no relief was granted to the
petitioner, the present petition has been filed.
After notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, the respondents submitted that though, petitioner has worked with
the respondent-Nigam for a period of 37 years starting from 01.03.1976 till
30.06.2013 on various posts but he was never a regular employee of the
respondent-Nigam so as to be granted the benefits of ACP Scheme as well
as the retiral benefits. As per the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled
for any benefit as he was not a regular employee of the respondent-Nigam.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 7
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
It is a matter of concern that an employee has worked with the
department for 37 years but is being denied the service benefits on the
ground that there was no occasion with the department to regularize the
services of the petitioner so that he can get the pensionary benefits after
attaining the age of superannuation. It is a conceded position that while the
petitioner was in service, the State of Haryana had issued various
regularization policies so as to consider the claim of the eligible employees
for regularization of their services, which policies have already been
adopted by the respondent-Nigam. It is also a conceded fact before this
Court that respondents have regularized the employees working in the
Nigam on various posts keeping in view the regularization policies, which
have been adopted by the respondent-Nigam. Once, such regularization
policy is of the year 2003, which was issued on 01.10.2003, according to
which, an employee, who has rendered three years service as on 30.09.2003,
is entitled to be considered for regularization of his/her services. The
petitioner concededly has discharged the duties since 01.03.1976. As on
30.09.2003, he had rendered approximately 27 years of service with the
respondent-Nigam, whereas, only three years service was required for
regularizing the services under the Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003.
Nothing has come on record why, the benefit of said policy was not
extended to the petitioner despite being eligible.
Further more, as per the settled principle of law settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 titled as
Prem Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on
02.09.2019, an employee, who has discharged the duties with a department
3 of 7
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
for 2 to 3 decades, is deemed to be a regular employee so as to make the
said employee eligible for the grant of pensionary benefits. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-
"35. There are some of the employees who have not been
regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40
or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they
have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against
any particular project, their services ought to have been
regularized under the Government instructions and even as per
the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka &
Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said
decision has laid down that in case services have been
rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the
Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized
of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees
who have worked for ten years or more should have been
regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for
consideration of regularisation as others have been
regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a
regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be
entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they
been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of
superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as
if they have retired from the regular establishment and the
services rendered by them right from the day they entered the
work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying
service for purpose of pension."
Again, while considering a question whether, an employee who
had rendered 30 years of service on adhoc basis but is denied pension, is
justifiable or not, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that where an
employee has rendered 30 years of service continuously, the State cannot be
4 of 7
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
permitted to take a stand that the employee was not regular in service and
non-regularization of the services, resulting in denial in pension, is
unreasonable. The said order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in SLP No.1109 of 2022 titled as State of Gujarat and others versus
Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, decided on 18.02.2022 is as under:-
"It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the
services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and
thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the
respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary
benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its
own wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30 years and
thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30
years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is
nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such
ought not to have taken such a stand.
In the present case, the High Court has not committed
any error in directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to
the respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30
years service.
Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
Once, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed the
regularization of the services of an employee, who had comlpleted 2 to 3
decades of service, the case of the petitioner is covered by the said settled
principle of law. In the present case, the petitioner has worked for 37 years
with the respondent-Nigam.
Further more, even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnatka and others versus Uma Devi
5 of 7
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, an employee, who had rendered 10 years of
service, has to be considered for regularization as a one time measure.
Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner does
not have 10 years services so as to exclude him from the said consideration.
Keeping in view the above, as per the settled principle of law,
coupled with the various policies, which have been issued by the State of
Haryana, duly adopted by the respondent-Nigam for regularizing the
services of the employees, the petitioner's claim for regularization needs to
be allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the law laid down in Prem Singh's case (supra), the petitioner does not
press his claim for the grant of difference of salary in case, his service is
regularized in terms of the Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 but, the
petitioner be paid the pensionary benefits in accordance with law, as
extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The prayer of the petitioner is in accordance with the settled
principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prem
Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, the respondents are directed to
regularize the services of the petitioner under the Regularization Policy
dated 01.10.2003 as no impediment qua the claim of the petitioner has been
pointed out by the respondents. Petitioner be treated as a regular employee
starting from 01.10.2003 i.e. the date of Regularization Policy and his salary
be fixed accordingly till the date when the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation and all the pensionary benefits for which a regular employee
is entitled for, be extended to him along with arrears. The petitioner will
6 of 7
CWP No. 3173 of 2016
also be entitled for the grant of arrears of pension from the date he attained
the age of superannuation.
Let the present order be complied within a period of two
months of the receipt of copy of this order.
Petition is allowed in above terms.
July 25, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
√
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
√
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
