Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:008458
Page 1 of 6
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.01.2024
Brinder Pal Singh
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
****
Present: Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Legal Aid Counsel
for the petitioner.
Ms. Shivani Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenged originally the
order dated 31.03.1997. The petitioner had preferred a writ petition
No.CWP-3253-1997 admitted in the year 1997 wherein he prayed to
direct the respondents to pay the petitioner his salary in regular pay
scales of Chowkidar w.e.f. 13.10.1993 and also to direct the
respondents to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from
01.01.1995 to 31.03.1995, 01.08.1995 to 26.02.1996, and from
November, 1996 till the date of filing of the petition. He further prayed
to quash the order dated 24.02.1997 and direct the respondents to
consider the petitioner for the post of Peon.
2. After filing of the writ petition, the petitioner's services were
dispensed with vide order dated 31.03.1997 and therefore he amended
his writ petition to challenge the order of 31.03.1997. The services
were dispensed with in terms of an order passed in another writ
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:008458
petition No.3827-1997 which was challenged by the State of Punjab in
SLP before the Apex Court. The Apex Court granted stay of the
impugned order, and thereafter other employees whose services were
also dispensed with and similarly placed as that of the petitioner, were
taken back at service. The petitioner had been denied reinstatement. He
therefore moved an application before this Court, and this Court vide
order dated 24.03.1999 allowed the application and directed the
respondents to allow the petitioner to work as chowkidar cum peon,
and to pay him salary from the date of his reinstatement.
3. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner was taken back in
service vide order dated 26.04.1999 and he was appointed as a
chowkidar (contingency paid) w.e.f. 26.04.1999 to 28.02.2000 on
temporary basis on the daily rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner.
He joined his duties and continued to perform his duties till the order
was passed on 15.03.2000 dispensing his services w.e.f. 28.02.2000.
4. The act of dispensing with the services of the petitioner was challenged
by the petitioner in contempt proceedings after giving a legal notice.
The said contempt proceedings were permitted to be withdrawn on
03.10.2002 with liberty to move civil miscellaneous application in the
writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, through Legal Aid,
submits that thereafter the application was not filed for challenging the
order of termination dated 15.03.2000 and only early listing
application was filed. The case remained pending and while the
petitioner's services were dispensed with, other persons who were
appointed and reinstated were regularized.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:008458
6. Learned counsel has taken this Court to the order passed by the
Division Bench wherein in compliance of the orders passed by the
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5059-1997 in State of Punjab and
others vs. Baldar Singh, it had directed as a one time measure to
regularize the other employees who were appointed before 13.06.1996
on ad hoc basis and the instructions dated 26.05.2003 issued by the
State Government relating to regularization. He submits that as the
petitioner was also in service as on 13.06.1996 and his termination is
wrongful, he should be also considered for regularization and he
should be deemed to be continuing in service.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that
after the withdrawal of the contempt petition, the petitioner did not
challenge the order of termination, and for last more than 20 years, the
petitioner is not in service. Learned counsel submits that the other
persons who were reinstated have been regularized in terms of the
policy/instructions dated 26.05.2003, and as the petitioner was not in
service, the instructions dated 26.05.2003 would not be applicable to
the petitioner.
8. I have considered the submissions.
9. The Division Bench in CWP-17737-2003 in Wazir Singh and others
vs. State of Punjab and others, examined the policy issued by the
State of Punjab in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court (supra), and observed as under:
"It is necessary to emphasise the narration in
paragraph 5 of the aforesaid instruction which clarifies that the
instant instructions have been issued on the basis of and in
compliance with the directions issued by the Apex Court on
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:008458
8.4.2003 in Civil Appeal No. 5059 of 1997- State of Punjab and
others Vs. Baldar Singh. It is pointed out by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the Apex Court in its directions only
stipulated induction into service prior to a cut-off date i.e.
13.6.1996 and that it nowhere envisage that persons who had a
break in service were not to be regularized as a one time
measure envisaged in the aforesaid observations of the Apex
Court. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that paragraph 1 must be read in conjunction
with paragraph 5 so as to determine whether the term without
break expressed in paragraph 1 was justified in terms of the
order passed by the Apex Court.
We have examined the totally of the facts and
circumstances of this case in conjunction with the observations
made by the Apex Court in its order dated 8.4.2003. We are
satisfied that the intent of the order passed by the Apex Court
was to regularize all employees appointed on or before
13.6.1996 as a one time measure who were continuing in service
on the date of issuance of the policy instructions dated
26.5.2003. The petitioners clearly satisfy the aforesaid
condition. The petitioners also satisy all other conditions. It was
nowhere envisaged in the observation of the Apex Court that the
said service should be without any break. Learned counsel for
the respondents has invited our attention to the averment in
paragraph 4 of the written statement wherein break in service in
respect of each of the petitioners have been expressed.
Undoubtedly, there have been breaks in the employment of the
petitioners but even in terms of the guidelines expressed in the
instructions dated 26.5.2003 they were irrelevant for the issue of
regularization in furtherance of the directions of the Apex
Court. We are, therefore, satisfied specifically on account of the
fact that paragraphs 2 to 7 which record the essential
requirements before an order of regularization can be passed in
favour of an employee that the words without break expressed in
paragraph 1 of the policy instructions are clearly a surplusage
and not intended to be read as a pre-requisite for regularization
under the said policy instructions. Since the petitioners
undisputedly fulfill all the terms and conditions expressed in
paragraphs 2 to 7 of the policy instructions dated 26.5.2003, we
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:008458
direct the respondents to issue regularization orders in favour of
the petitioners within a period of 3 months from today. The
petitioners will also be entitled to all consequential benefits."
10. So far as the petitioner is concerned, admittedly he was working as a
chowkidar since September, 1993. He had originally filed writ petition
claiming his appointment and promotion on the post of Peon
whereafter his services were dispensed with by the respondents, and
this Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as
chowkidar cum peon and pay his salary from the date of his
reinstatement. He was reinstated on 26.04.1999 but again his services
were dispensed with on 28.02.2000. Thus, there are breaks in his
services.
11. So far as his termination of 1997 is concerned, there was no occasion
to terminate his services as similarly situated all the other persons were
working. The order of termination of 1997 challenged by the petitioner
therefore is found to be without basis, and the order dispensing the
services of the petitioner having beeng passed wrongfully is quashed
and set aside.
12. The consequence of the above quashing of the order of 1997 would
result in reinstatement of the petitioner from the said date and he would
be deemed to be continuing in service. The interregnum orders passed
in compliance of the orders passed by the Court would not therefore
take away the right of the petitioner for continuity of service. He would
be deemed to be continuing in service from 1997 onwards.
13. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench
in Wazir Singh (supra), he would be entitled for consideration for
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
CWP-3253-1997 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:008458
regularization in terms of the policy issued by the State of Punjab on
26.05.2003 which was made only for those persons who were working
on temporary/ ad hoc/ daily wage basis as on 13.06.1996. The
respondents will therefore conduct an exercise and pass necessary
orders of regularization of the petitioner.
14. The orders have been passed more so as similarly situated other
persons namely Tarsem Lal, Makhan Singh, Parmjit Singh have been
regularized.
15. The petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits and the
services which he deemed to have performed notionally, with actual
benefits of pay fixation from the date the order was passed by the
Division Bench in the case of Wazir Singh (supra). The entire period
of service from 1993 would be considered notionally for the purpose of
qualifying service for pension. The benefits shall be calculated. The
petitioner shall be reinstated. Necessary orders shall be passed within a
period of three months from today.
16. Writ Petition stands allowed as above.
17. All interims orders stand vacated.
18. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
January 23, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:008458
6 of 6
