Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 20 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126082
CWP NO.26173-2014(O&M) 1
and other connected matters
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(209/6) CWP NO.26173-2014(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 20.09.2024
Mohit Marwaha and others ............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents
2. CWP NO.26153-2014(O&M)
Deepak Kalia and others ................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ................Respondents
3. CWP No.172-2015(O&M)
Kashmir Singh ...................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .................Respondents
4. CWP No.4215-2015(O&M)
Vishal Mahajan and another ..................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others .................Respondents
5. CWP No.16806-2015(O&M)
Baljinder Singh and others ...............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...............Respondents
6. CWP No.17236-2015(O&M)
Pritpal Singh and others ..............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present Mr.Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate,
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 26-09-2024 22:12:01 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126082
CWP NO.26173-2014(O&M) 2
and other connected matters
with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate and
Mr. Paras Chander,Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No.26173 and
CWP No. 26153 of 2014, CWP No.172 of 2015
and CWP No.4215 of 2015.
Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CWP No. 16806 of 2015
and CWP No.17236 of 2015.
Mr.Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J, (ORAL)
1. By this common order, 6 writ petitions, the details of which have
been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions involve the
same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance which is raised by
the petitioners is that they are working on contract basis for the last more than
15 years and hence, they should not be replaced with another set of employees
on the same terms and conditions as well as their services should be regularized
keeping in view the Instructions, which have been issued by the Govt. of
Punjab, especially Instructions dated 18.03.2011, a copy of which has been
appended as Annexure P-10.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the petitioners were appointed after the posts were advertised vide
advertisement dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) and the petitioners fulfilled the
qualification mentioned in the advertisement and till date, not even a single
complaint has come qua their work and conduct and therefore, the petitioners
who have already rendered 15 years of service and have already become over
age as of now to compete with any other posts, their services should be rather
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126082
and other connected matters
regularized by the respondents let alone replace them with other contractual
employee on the same terms and conditions.
4. Upon notice of motion, respondents have filed reply and stated that
at the time when the petitioners were appointed, the process envisaged for
appointment to the post was not followed by the then principal, with regard said
act, even action was taken against the principal and when the institute intended
to make appointment by following due process as envisaged under the rules
governing the institute, the present petitions were filed with a prayer to quash
the advertisements dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that they are
being replaced with the similarly situated employees, and have got an interim
order and are now working under the interim orders of the Court.
5. With regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners, learned
State counsel submits that at the time when the petitioners were appointed, the
institution was a government institution but later on, it has attained the status of an
independent University. Hence, an appropriate decision can be taken by the University
with regard to the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
record with their assistance.
7. It is a settled principle of law that a contractual employee cannot be
replaced by another set of contractual employee on the same terms and conditions.
Nothing has come on record that the petitioners did not fulfil the qualification
required for the post on which they are discharging the duties.
8. Apart from this, the petitioners have been working for the last 15 years
with the respondents. Once, the petitioners have rendered 15 years of service on
contract basis and that too without any complaints qua their work or conduct, it is
directed that the petitioners cannot be replaced by another set of employees on the
same terms and conditions.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126082
and other connected matters
9. With regard to the prayer of the petitioners for the grant of regularization
of their services, the same can only be done on the basis of any appropriate policy
applicable to them. In the present case, the policy which is being relied upon has been
issued by the Government of Punjab for its own employees. Whether, the same is
applicable on the petitioners and the respondent Institute / University will like to
adopt the same for regularizing the services of the petitioners, depends upon the basis
of any such decision is taken by the Institute which has attained the status of a
University.
10. Keeping in view the said fact, the respondent University is directed to
consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services. For the said
purpose, the University is free to take into consideration the policies which have been
issued by the State of Punjab regarding the regularization of the services of the
employees. The decision can be based upon any such decision taken by the other
similarly situated institution / University where the employees were working on
contract basis.
11. Once, it is not disputed that the petitioners are working against the
regular sanctioned posts, having rendered 15 years of service, respondents should be
sympathetic enough for considering the claim of the petitioners for regularization of
their services so that, they can also have a stability in their lives and can teach the
students in a better manner rather than being concerned about their employment and
future.
12. Let the respondent - University pass an appropriate speaking order
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, on the
claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services and for arriving at the
decision, due reasons be given in case claim of the petitioners is being rejected and
the same be also communicated to the petitioners for their information and necessary
action and in case the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner, they can have the
remedy as available to them under law.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126082
and other connected matters
12. Disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this
judgment.
14. A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of aforementioned
connected petitions.
20.09.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
5 of 5
