Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 16 April, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050637-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:050637-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(109) LPA-773-2022 (O&M)
Decided on : 16.04.2024
Raghbir Singh & others
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr.Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Deepak Balyan, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
Mr.Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Akshay Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1851-LPA-2022
1. Application for condoning the delay of 49 days in filing the
appeal is allowed in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit of applicant-appellant No.5. Delay of 49 days in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-773-2022
3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
22.09.2021 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-9021-2017
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed and their
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050637-DB
LPA-773-2022 (O&M)
claim for regularization with respondent no.3-Sugar Mill was rejected.
upholding the order dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State
whereby the request for change of date of birth had been rejected.
4. The reasoning which weighed with the Learned Single Judge
was that the writ petitioners were working in the Sugar Mill which is a
seasonal industry and it does not bestow upon them any right for being
made regular employees in the absence of any specific policy made by the
Government or the Controlling Authority wherein there can be
regularization of service and several factors have to be taken into
consideration regarding the availability of the posts and the educational
qualifications. The writ petitioners could not seek the benefit merely on
account of the fact that they were working with the respondent-Sugar Mill,
which is a seasonal industry, for a long time as the requirement would
vary from time to time and the additional work force could be hired by
way of outsourcing. The writ petitioners had thus no vested right to be
treated as regular employees. Resultantly, challenge raised to the circular
dated 16.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) was rejected. Similarly, the prayer for
issuance of directions for staying implementation of the order dated
28.01.2015 passed in CWP-17837-2006 titled Bhim Sen & others Vs. State
of Haryana & others, wherein adjustment of Ex-employees of Bhuna
Cooperative Sugar Mills in other Sugar Mills was rejected on the ground
that the writ jurisdiction is to be exercised in exceptional cases and not in
routine.
5. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that it is the basic
case of the writ petitioners that they have been working since 1989/1995.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050637-DB
LPA-773-2022 (O&M)
Reliance is also placed upon the policy of the State dated 29.07.2011
(Annexure P-5) for regularization.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the stand of the respondent-
Sugar Mill was that the policy was neither applicable to the writ
petitioners nor to the Cooperative Sugar Mills. It is the case of the
respondent-Sugar Mill that it is a seasonal industry with its season running
from October/November/December to March/April/May and also that the
mill retain a very small regular staff. The writ petitioners were never
engaged through proper procedure and they cannot seek the benefit of
regularization in the absence of any policy and the writ petition itself was
not maintainable.
7. The law stands settled by the Apex Court regarding the issue
of regularization and it has been held that there is no legal vested right for
regularization in the absence of a policy and the Courts could not direct
regularization. In Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta
Jeevandasswasi Suvarna Jaya Vs. V.R.Rudani & others, AIR 1989 SC
1607, the issue arose as to the power of the High Courts to issue writ of
mandamus and it was found that it is a very wide remedy which must be
easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. However, in
Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1 regarding the right of regularization of a Government
servant was duly considered and it was held that a mandamus could not be
issued in favour of the employee for regularization in the absence of any
enforceable legal right. The said view was followed in Official
Liquidator Vs. Dayanand & others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 and rather it was
noticed that High Courts were issuing contrary directions inspite of the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050637-DB
LPA-773-2022 (O&M)
law laid down in Uma Devi (supra) and the earlier judgment of the Apex
Court in U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey,
(2007) 11 SCC 92 was held to be obiter dicta.
8. It is to be noticed that in the present case also, challenge is to
the circular dated 16.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) whereby approval had been
granted for specific period from 08.04.2016 upto 30.06.2016 for the
employees working in the Security Department of the Mill and another set
of personnel working in Sanitation and Gardening Section as special case
and with further direction that the Mill would outsource these services in
future and no approval would be granted in future. The subject was
regarding recalling of the seasonal/Daily Wage staff. It is thus apparent
that directions were issued by the Haryana State Federation of Cooperative
Sugar Mills Ltd. through the Managing Director that recruitment should be
done by way of outsourcing which is subject matter of challenge.
9. Reliance has rightly been noticed regarding the seasonal
industry and the staff being mainly deployed during the season from
October to May and employing a very small regular staff to meet the
exigencies during the rest of the year. It is settled position that
regularization would entail financial outlays and liabilities upon the Mill
and it is a policy decision and it is not for the Court to exercise its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction to impose demand of the employees who
are seeking the benefit of regularization. The availability of the policy has
been specifically denied since it would be applicable to the Group-C and
Group-D employees of the Government. Nothing has been shown that the
policy has been adopted by the Sugar Mill on the basis of which the right
to seek mandamus could have been invoked. In such circumstances, we
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050637-DB
LPA-773-2022 (O&M)
are of the considered opinion that the view which has been taken by the
Learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity which would
warrant interference by this Court.
10. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present
appeal is hereby dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed
of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIKAS SURI)
16.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
5 of 5
