Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 24 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126655
CWP NO.23027-2016(O&M) 1
and connected case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(292+294) CWP NO.23027-2016(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 24.09.2024
Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur and others ............Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents
CWP No.290-2023(O&M)
Jyoti Rana and others ................Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present Mr.A.S.Gagrha, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-23027-2016.
Mr.B.S.Patwalia, Advocate,
with Mr. Gaurav Jagota,Advocate,
for the petitioner in CWP-290-2023.
Mr.Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. .
Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondent no.4 in CWP-290-2023
and for respondent no.3 in CWP-23027-2016.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J, (ORAL)
CM-8704-CWP-2018
Present application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. read with
Section 151 C.P.C. is for impleading the applicant as petitioner No.10.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126655
and connected case
Notice of the application.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent-State and submits that he has no objection if the
present application is allowed.
In view of the above keeping in view of the facts mentioned in the
application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is
allowed. Applicant-Indu Aggarwal is ordered to be impleaded as petitioner
No.10.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
Registry to tag the same at the appropriate place.
Main Case:
1. By this common order, 2 writ petitions, the details of which have
been given in the heading, are being decided both these petitions involve the
same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present petitions, the prayer of the petitioners is that they are
entitled for regularization of their services as per the Policy dated 11.03.2011
and the said question of law that as and when an employee completes three
years of service, as per the said policy, is entitled for consideration of
regularization of his/her service, has already been decided by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in CWP No.11427 of 2015, titled Sukhjad Singh and
others v. State of Punjab and another, decided on 19.12.2018, which
judgment has already been upheld in LPA No.516 of 2020, hence, the present
petitions be also disposed of in terms of Sukhjad Singh's case (supra).
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the said fact
that the petitioners are working with the respondents but, submits that the initial
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126655
and connected case
appointment of the petitioners was through the Punjab Information and
Technology Corporation and hence the same is to be treated as an appointment
through outsourcing agency. Learned counsel for the respondents concedes the
factum that from the year 2013 onwards, the department has employed the
petitioners and they are working with the department since then without there
being any recommendation of respondent no.3 agency and have completed 9
years of service.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
the petitioners could not have been treated as employees of the outsourcing
agency because respondent no.3 Corporation is also a Government Corporation
which is a State Government undertaking, hence, it cannot be said that the
petitioners are employees of a private outsourcing agency rather, the petitioners
were selected and appointed through the said Corporation and hence, the said
argument of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be taken into
account.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their assistance.
6. It may be noticed that the question as to whether the petitioners are
entitled to be considered under the Regularization Policy dated 11.03.2011
already stands decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sukhjad
Singh's case (supra), which judgment has already been upheld by the Division
Bench in LPA No. 516 of 2020. Though, the said judgment is pending
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, but as there is no
interim order, the claim of the petitioners can be allowed in terms of the
judgment in Sukhjad Singh's case (supra) subject to the outcome of the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126655
and connected case
Special Leave Petition filed by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has undertaken before this
Court that in case, the judgment in Sukhjad Singh's case (supra) is modified
or set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the same can be made
applicable upon the petitioners as well without there being any appeal against
the present order.
8. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents that the petitioners were employees of the outsourcing agency, it
may be noticed that once, the said outsourcing agency is also a Government
undertaking and not a private institution and the petitioners were being paid
from the State Exchequer, the respondent cannot take the said objection that the
petitioners were appointed through outsourcing agency especially when,
starting from the year 2013, the petitioners were the direct appointees with the
department of the Forest Department, Punjab and have rendered 9 years of
service as of now.
9. Keeping in view the above, the present petitions are also disposed
of in terms of Sukhjad Singh's case (supra) with the condition that in case, the
said judgment is modified or set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
the same will be ipso facto made applicable upon the petitioners without their
being any appeal preferred by the respondents.
10. Let the present order be complied with within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this
judgment.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126655
and connected case
12. A photocopy of the order be placed on the files of aforementioned
connected petition.
24.09.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
