Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh And Another vs Guru Nanak Dev University And Another on 5 February, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017645
CWP-10827-2022 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
CWP-10827-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.02.2025
Baljeet Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Guru Nank Dev University and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Davinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Cyrus Chauhan, Advocate, for
Mr. M. K. Dogra, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer made in the present petition is for directing the
respondents to pay the minimum pay scale and not to replace them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that as is apparent from the
index, reliance was placed on pendency of CWP-23288 of 2012 and notice was
also issued based thereon as well as the interim order on 16.01.2023, which has
since been disposed of alongwith the batch of petitions, relevant of which reads
thus:-
"2. The prayer in these cases is for directing the respondents to
regularize the services of the petitioners serving in the respondent-
University.
3. Learned Senior counsel as also the other learned counsel, in the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017645
CWP-10827-2022 (O&M) - 2-
same breath, submit that the petitioners, working for more than 10 year
on various posts, such as Electrician, Helper, Security Guard, Ground
Man, Sewadar, etc. on daily-wage basis are entitled for regularisation,
their cases being covered on all fours in their favour by judgments of
this Court rendered in CWP-19238-2013, Amrish Sharma and others
vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 26.02.2024 and Avtar
Singh and others vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar through
its Registrar. CWP-12892-1996, decided on 01.12.2023. Relevant
paras of Amrish Sharma and others (supra) read 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 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
Conclusion:
47. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court
comes to conclusion as below:
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017645
CWP-10827-2022 (O&M) - 3-
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."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:017645
CWP-10827-2022 (O&M) - 4-
4. The operative portion of Avtar Singh and others (supra) reads thus:
"4. In view of above, since admittedly the petitioners No.2 to 6
have been working with the respondent-University for more
than 10 years on daily wage basis and were therefore entitled to
be regularized, the respondents have not denied the date of ap-
pointment of the petitioners as mentioned by them in para 2 of
the Writ Petition. Having been appointed in the years 1990,
1991, 1992 and 1993, this Court is of the view that the repre-
sentation made by petitioners (Annexure P-2) shall be exam-
ined in light of the judgment in the case of Uma Devi and Oth-
ers (Supra) and all the persons who have been working for 10
years or more shall be regularized in the aforesaid terms and
shall also be paid the regular pay scale. Arrears shall also be
calculated and paid to them."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the University as also for the State
have been unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any
distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary
law.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed of in
terms of Avtar Singh and Amrish Sharma (supra).
3. Learned counsel for the respondents despite his best efforts has been
unable to controvert the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in
the aforementioned judgments or cite any contrary law.
4. In wake of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms
of the judgment passed in Kulwant Singh and others (supra).
5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
05.02.2025
dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
