April 15, 2019:
Supreme Court has held that regularization of service obtained by fraud cannot be sustained.
Justice Indu Malhotra speaking for a two judges bench has passed the judgment in case titled Punjab Urban Planning and Development vs Karamjit Singh on 15.04.2019.
On 01.12.1995, the Karamjit was appointed as a Chowkidar on daily wages by the Appellant – Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority. His name was on the muster rolls till 31.03.1997. On 23.01.2001, the Government of Punjab revised the Policy for regularization of work-charged / daily wage and other categories of employees. As per the revised Policy, all the Departments under the Government of Punjab were directed to prepare lists of work-charged employees, daily wagers, and othersimilar categories of employees, who had completed 3 years of service. From such lists, employees would be absorbed / regularized against regular posts existing in each Department, in order of seniority.
Initially, the said Karmajit was included in the list prepared by the respondent for regularization of service but lateron when an enquiry was conducted, it was found that he did not fulfill the condition of length of service and therefore his services were terminated.
However, in a long battle, the said Karamjit found some support when a Ld. Single Judge of the High Court held that rightly or wrongly the Respondent’s services had been regularized on 26.12.2001 under the revised Policy of the State Government and therefore his services could not have been terminated without following the due course of law. Division bench agreed.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it found that both the benches in the High Court missed the basic point and applied the law incorrectly.
The Supreme Court observed “It is well settled that an order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the Competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law”.
It then proceeded to hold “The Respondent had sought to secure regularization on the basis of interpolation in the final list of employees recommended for regularization. Such an appointment would be illegal and void ab initio, and cannot be sustained”.
Read the judgment here:
Picture Source :
