Aman Kumar v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.

Present : Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents (in CWP No.9052 of 2009). Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Avocate, for the respondents (in CWP No.9055 of 2009). -.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.9052 and 9055 of 2009 as the issues involved in both the cases are common in nature. The facts are being referred to separately. C.W.P.No.9052 of 2009 [2] The petitioner joined the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `the Board') as a contingent paid daily wage employee in the year 1990. He was brought to the category of special contingent paid C.W.P.Nos .9052 and 9055 of 2009 2 employees in May, 1998 and was granted the basic pay of regular scale alongwith annual increments. While working as such, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis vide appointment letter dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) subject to the terms and conditions contained therein including that he shall be on probation for a period of two years during which period his services could be terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. Soon thereafter, the petitioner's appointment on regular basis was cancelled vide the impugned order dated

29.5.2009 (Annexure P-7) and he has been brought back to the category of special contingent paid employees. [3] [4] Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. In their reply-affidavit, the respondents have maintained that the petitioner's appointment on regular basis has been rightly cancelled on two counts, namely, (i) he had not completed 12 years' service as a special contingent paid employee nor was he a contingent paid employee on the cut off date i.e., on 31.12.1994; (ii) the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No.90 dated 27.4.2007 under Section 324 IPC. [5] The petitioner in his rejoinder has explained that there is no policy/circular mandating completion of 12 years of service as a special contingent paid employee for bringing an employee on the regular establishment and in fact, the persons who appointed as special contingent paid employees after him, have already been made regular. Regarding the criminal case, it is explained that the police had filed a cancellation report C.W.P.Nos .9052 and 9055 of 2009 3 which stood accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala vide order dated 22.8.2009 (Annexure P-10). C.W.P.No.9055 of 2009 [6] The petitioner joined the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board as a contingent paid daily wage employee in the year 1991. She was brought to the category of special contingent paid employees in April, 1998 and was granted the basis pay of regular pay scale alongwith increments. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as a Peon on regular basis vide appointment letter dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) on the terms and conditions prescribed therein, including that she was to remain on probation for a period of two years during which period her services could be terminated by giving one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof. Soon thereafter, the petitioner's appointment on regular basis was cancelled vide the impugned order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) and she has been brought back to the category of special contingent paid employees. [7] [8] Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. In their reply-affidavit, the respondents have reiterated that the petitioner was not entitled to regular appointment as she had not completed 12 years service as a special contingent paid employee on the cut off date i.e. 31.12.1994, nor she being a probationer had got any right to regular appointment. [9] The petitioner in her rejoinder has reiterated her claim for continuation on regular basis. C.W.P.Nos .9052 and 9055 of 2009 4 [10] I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. [11] It is indeed not in dispute that the petitioners were initially appointed as contingent paid daily wagers in the years 1990 and 1991, respectively. Both of them were made special contingent paid employees and were granted the basis pay of regular pay scale(s) alongwith increments in April and May, 1998. By the time, the petitioners were appointed on regular basis in the year 2009 on similar terms and conditions, they had completed almost 19 & 18 years of service, respectively. The respondents have though come up with a categoric stand that the special contingent staff was required to complete 12 years' of service as on 31.12.1994 for regularization of their services, nevertheless, no such Statutory Rule or Policy has been brought on record. Be that as it may, there appears to be no rationale behind fixing an antecedent cut off date, which goes past as far as 15 years from the date when the competent authority decided to regularize the petitioners' services. That apart, the service particulars of the petitioners were very much in the knowledge of the authorities and it is not their case that the order of regularization was passed due to any inadvertent mistake. The respondent-Board being an organ of the welfare State is obligated to discharge its constitutional obligation of a model employer. The petitioners had served the Board near two decades before regularization of their services and they cannot be groped in darkness for whole of their lives. The decision to regularize their services was just, fair, equitable and consistent with the Board's Policy C.W.P.Nos .9052 and 9055 of 2009 5 and unless it was found to have been secured through fraudulent or deceitful means, there arose no occasion to review or recall the same. The only incriminating material pointed out against the first petitioner is that there was a criminal case registered against him under Section 324 I.P.C. The question as to whether or not the said offence involved `moral turpitude', need not be gone into for the reason that the police had filed a cancellation report which has already been accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patiala, vide order dated

22.8.2009. The alleged incriminating material against petitioner No.1, thus, no longer exists. Since the impugned action has not sustained on merits also, the additional plea pressed into aid by the petitioners that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, is rendered academic. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed; the impugned orders dated 26.5.2009 are quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to continue on regular basis subject to the other terms and conditions contained in their appointment letters. Dasti. December 13, 2010 Mohinder (SURYA KANT) JUDGE