Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh Sandhu And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064256
CWP-3327-2022 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
259
CWP-3327-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Kulwant Singh Sandhu and others
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. F.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for directing the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against their respective
posts.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been serving
the State Election Commission as Class III and IV employees for the last more
than 25 years and are thus entitled to minimum of pay scale including DA,
grade pay, etc. and regularization their cases being squarely covered by the
judgments in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, 2017 (1) SCC 148, followed by
this Court in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others,
CWP-19238-2013, decided on 26.02.2024.
3. The relevant portion of Amrish Sharma (supra), reads thus:-
"35. In the case in hand, the respondent in 2006 framed
regularization policy which was followed by 2011 Policy. As per
Policy of 2006 read with policy of 2011, an employee who has
completed service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006 is
eligible for regular appointment. All the petitioners are Class 'D'
employees. Few petitioners, as confirmed in different affidavits,
during the pendency of litigation have been regularized and
remaining have not been regularized due to lack of
permanent/sanctioned pasts. The respondent in 2023 has framed
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064256
CWP-3327-2022 (O&M)
another policy whereby dying cadre has been created. There was
no minimum qualification at the time of their appointment. They
without interruption are working for decades. They are assigned
duties of Class IV. Courts repeatedly have held that long
experience is as good as minimum qualification especially when
an employee is effectively discharging his duties. Thus, it would
not be justified, on the ground of minimum qualification, to deny
benefit of regularization to an employee who is working for
decades and is assigned duties of class IV i.e. lowest rung.
xx xx xx
40. From the conjoint reading of judgments of Supreme Court
in Jagjit Singh (supra), Bahadur Singh (supra), Uma Devi (supra)
and Ilmo Devi (supra), it can be culled out that part time
employees who are working for few hours cannot claim pay
parity. Daily wage workers who work at par with regular
employees though cannot claim pay parity with regular employees
yet are entitled to minimum pay. The minimum pay includes
dearness allowance and grade pay. The petitioners herein are
working for last 30-40 years and they are not part timer whereas
they are daily wager and work at par with regular employees
which is more evident from the fact that few of their colleagues
have already been absorbed against sanctioned posts. The majority
of the petitioners are not absorbed due to non-availability of
sanctioned/regular posts or they had not completed service of 10
years at the time of introduction of 2006 Policy. The petitioners
who despite having rendered a quite long service, may be more
than 30 years, if not regularized, deserve at least minimum pay
which includes minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and
grade pay. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent-State is
liable to pay minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and
grade pay to all those petitioners who neither have been/are
regularized nor are part timer.
41. The respondent in its reply and during the course of
arguments has pleaded that petitioners are paid monthly lump sum
amount which is more than rate prescribed by Deputy
Commissioner and minimum of pay scale available to regular
employees. The dichotomy between figure of State and Petitioners
has erupted due to non-inclusion of dearness allowance and grade
pay. The State in view of above referred judgments is bound to
add DA and GP while calculating minimum of pay scale.
42. Keeping in mind financial burden on State exchequer, binding
precedents, rights of petitioners as well as equity, this Court
hereby holds and gives its imprimatur to the State to pay minimum
of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay to all those
employees who are not part timers and have completed service of
10 years.
xx xx xx
Conclusion:
47. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court comes
to conclusion as below:
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064256
CWP-3327-2022 (O&M)
i) This Court in the normal course cannot ask State to create or
sanction posts.
ii) The petitioners who had completed service of 10 years by the
end of December' 2006, either at present are in service or have
already retired, are entitled to regular post and they cannot be
denied regularization on the ground of lack of sanctioned post or
minimum education qualification. To avoid burden on State
exchequer, it is clarified that from the deemed date of their
regularization, they shall be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus
dearness allowance and grade pay till the date of this order and
thereafter regular pay scale.
iii) The petitioners who are still in service but did not complete
service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006 would form part
of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The State, in view of long
service of these employees, would not insist for minimum
qualification. They from the date of completing service of 10 years
would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness
allowance plus grade pay till the date they are regularized in terms
of 2023 Policy.
iv) The petitioners who did not complete service of 10 years by the
end of December' 2006 and during the pendency of present
litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to
minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay
from the date of completing service of 10 years till the date of
their retirement or death.
v) The petitioners who have already been regularized by
31.12.2016 shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit
because they are already getting higher amount of salary for last
couple of years.
vi) The respondent-State shall not be liable to pay interest on
arrears arising on account of re-fixation of pay."
4. Learned State counsel despite his best efforts has been unable to
controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the
aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary law.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed in Amrish Sharma (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.05.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
