O&M) Paramjit Ram State of Punjab and others v. Date of decision
Case Details
CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 1. CWP-2621-2003 (O&M) Mandhir Singh and others State of Punjab and others Versus 2. CWP-4625-2003 (O&M) Paramjit Ram State of Punjab and others Versus Date of decision: 14.10.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents ....Petitioner ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in both the cases. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent – M.C., Ludhiana in both the cases. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) CM-8104-CWP-2019 in CWP-2621-2003 Prayer in this application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC is for impleading the applicants Ramesh Kumar and Anoop Singh as parties i.e. petitioners No.16 and 17. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners wishes to withdraw the instant application with liberty to file afresh petition as the case of the applicants is identical to present petitioners. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 2 CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 (O&M) 1. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003, as common questions of law and fact are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP-2621-2003. 2. The writ petition (CWP-2621-2003) has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) passed by the office of respondent No.2- Director, Local Government, Punjab, whereby a termination notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioners as they did not meet the requisite educational qualifications. It was further prayed that directions may be issued to grant the petitioners the same pay scale as their counterparts. 3. Briefly, the facts are that in November, 1994, a general strike took place with respect to Health Wing of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana causing the respondents to publish a general advertisement for recruitment to the post of Drivers, amongst others, to ensure that the vehicles of the Corporation remained in working condition. Accordingly, the petitioners were hired as Drivers. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWP-4342-2000 titled ‘Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,’ the services of the petitioners were regularized. The petitioners also appeared before the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana for examination and were declared medically fit for the job. However, the order of regularization was not CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 3 implemented by the respondents. Some of the petitioners served a notice dated 22.10.2002 (Annexure P-4) seeking regularization and grant of all consequential benefits. However, instead of regularizing their services and granting them the pay scale of a Driver working on regular basis, the office of respondent No.2 issued the impugned order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) regarding the termination of services of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) has been arbitrarily passed only on the ground that the petitioners do not possess the requisite educational qualifications fixed for the post of Driver. The petitioners were appointed at a time when the functioning of the Corporation was stalled due to a strike and at the time of their appointment only a valid driving license was required. At no point in time did the petitioners conceal their educational qualifications. He further contends that there is no resolution vide which the Corporation adopted the Punjab Roadways (Operational) State Service Class III
Facts
(First Amendment) Rules, 1980, and therefore, the petitioners are not governed by it. The Corporation itself has also not framed any service conditions and Rules for non-provincialised cadre staff, to which the petitioners belong and Rule 21 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1978 which forbids relaxation of academic qualifications, is only applicable to the provincialised cadre. The respondents cannot subsequently terminate CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 4 them for the lack of educational qualifications when the petitioners have already rendered about 11 years of service. Further, the petitioners shoulder the same responsibilities as those of other Drivers working for the Corporation on a regular basis and their work has remained satisfactory since their recruitment in the year 1994. Reliance in this regard is also placed on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Legal Reasoning
decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case.... *** *** *** 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (supra) and Shripal (supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 8 shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. *** *** *** 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and of ends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 9 where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. It also appears that the State tends to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non-availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 10 well as a Co-ordinate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-19238-2013 decided on 26.02.2024. 12. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the present petitions deserve to be allowed. The impugned order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within a period of six weeks from today, they shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
Arguments
5. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that that the qualifications for the post of Driver was Middle Passed, as discernible by notification dated 10.01.1980 (Annexure R-3) issued by the Department of Transport, Government of Punjab. It was requested by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 that academic qualifications may be relaxed (Annexure R-1), however, the same was denied as there was no provision in the Rules for the same. After a careful perusal, impugned order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-6) was passed, directing the Corporation to dispense with the services of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Corporation contends that an order dated 22.08.2001 (Annexure R-3/2) was issued ordering regularization of 169 Safai Sewaks, 48 Sewermen and 33 Drivers, including the present petitioners, provided that they fulfill the requisite educational qualifications, in view of the regularization policy dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure R-3/1) circulated by respondent No.1. The order dated 22.08.2001 (Annexure R-3/2) was circulated vide office order No.344 dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P-2), however, inadvertently it did CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 5 not mention that the daily wage staff needs to fulfill educational qualifications and experience to be eligible for regularization. Since the petitioners did not meet the requirements, the entries of the petitioners and their service books were not prepared. Further, the request for relaxation of educational qualifications made by the Corporation was also denied. As such, the petitioners are not qualified to hold the post of Driver and deserve to be dismissed from service. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioners were recruited as Drivers with the respondent-Corporation in the year 1994 and have rendered about 11 years of service. At the time of their recruitment, the only condition put forth was that they ought to have a valid driving license. A perusal of order dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P-2) indicates that the regularization of the petitioners were not made subject to fulfillment of any particular conditions relating to academic qualifications or experience, as also admitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3. Further, the petitioners were also ordered to get themselves medically examined in furtherance of their regularization, as indicated by order dated 23.10.2001 (Annexure P-3). 8. Furthermore, the respondents have not denied that the petitioners have rendered about 11 years of service and their record remains unblemished. It appears that the Corporation has taken benefit of the services of the petitioners for over a decade and after an inordinate delay, is denying them the benefits of regularization for lack CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 6 of educational qualifications in spite of passing orders to this effect. The respondents by their act and conduct has created a legitimate expectation on part of the petitioners and behaved consistently in that fashion for a considerable duration. At no stage did the petitioners engage in any misrepresentation with regards to their qualifications and thus, they cannot be made to face the brunt of the laxity displayed by their employer in adhering to the prescribed norms. 9. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant time period. Such an approach would violate the fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources when the State had no qualms about continuously taking advantage of the services rendered with regard to integral and recurring work of the concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of CWP Nos.2621 and 4625 of 2003 7 India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 10. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 speaking through Justice Vikram Nath has held as follows: “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgment of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent
Decision
disposed of. 14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. 14.10.2025 yakub (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No