Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander vs State Of Hy. And Anr on 18 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840
CWP-18133-1999(O&M)
1999(O&M) with
CWP-2160-2000(O&M)
2000(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
208 Date of Decision: 18.11.2024
1. CWP-18133
18133-1999(O&M)
RAM CHANDER ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
2. CWP-2160
2160-2000(O&M)
REKHA RANI ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.(in CWP-18133-
CWP -1999)
None for the petitioner. (in CWP--2160-2000)
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana.
***
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
These petitions have been filed, inter alia,, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing condition (i) of the Policy dated 07.03.1996, Annexure P-7, 7, whereby only such adhoc employees employees are required to be considered for regularisation who have completed two years' service on 31.01.1996, and were in service on that date. And break in service rendered on adhoc basis only up to a period of one month can be condoned, excluding the breaks occurring because of the concerned employee having left service of his own 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 04:20:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840 CWP-18133-1999(O&M) 1999(O&M) with CWP-2160-2000(O&M) 2000(O&M) -2- volition. Both the petitions are based on similar facts; however, to decide the case, facts are being taken from CWP-18133-1999.
1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends tha thatt the petitioner was initially appointed as Science Master on adhoc basis with effect from 05.02.1990 to 15.03.1990. The adhoc appointment was again offered to him for a period of six months vide office order dated 21.02.1994; pursuant thereto, he joined service service on 02.03.1994. The respondents later issued the impugned Policy, dated 07.03.1996, for regularising adhoc employees on completion of two years services as on 31.01.1996. The only reason petitioner could not be considered for regularisation in terms thereof was that on the appointed day he did not have two years' service. The Policy wrongly provides for condoning one month break in service, there is no rationale for it. The benefit should be extended irrespective of the duration of break once the service ice has been rendered. And the petitioner's earlier adhoc service from 05.02.1990 to 15.03.1990, also deserves to be counted for regularisaiton especially when it has been counted towards increments and other service benefits.
3. Per contra, contra learned Statee counsel contends that the respondents have decided upon a cut-off cut off date as 31.01.1996, for regularisation of adhoc employees by taking a conscious decision to that effect. Only one month break in service can be condoned to consider an adhoc employee for regularization, egularization, provided it has not been caused of his own volition; whereas in the petitioner's case there is break in services for about four years, which could not have been condoned in terms of conditions laid down in the Policy. She further contends, it it has specifically been stated in the written statement that the petitioner's previous previous adhoc service was wrongly counted towards 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 04:20:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840 CWP-18133-1999(O&M) 1999(O&M) with CWP-2160-2000(O&M) 2000(O&M) -3- service benefits by the concerned officers in the absence of any rules or instructions to that effect. And their pay will be re refixed fixed after withdrawing the benefit of previous service wrongly counted.
4. Heard.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in these two petitions initially worked in the Department as Science Master/S. S. Mistress on adhoc basis only for a period period of about one month and nine days (in the first pet petition) ition) and one month and twenty-four twenty four days (in the second petition); after gap of about four and ten years, respectively, they were issued fresh adhoc appointments without providing any continuity of servi service. Besides, in n the absence of any provision in Rules or Regulations, the earlier service cannot be counted for any purpose, and the petitioners' claims to that effect have been rightly rejected by the respondents. In case they were wrongly given benefit of previouss service by the concerned officers which the respondents had undertaken to correct, no benefit on that account could be claimed by the petitioners.
5.1 Further, a perusal of Policy, dated 07.03.1996, shows that the Department has notified 31.01.1996 as the cut cut-off off date to consider adhoc employees for regularisation on fulfilment of the laid down conditions, which include minimum two years' service by that date. Apparently, there is nothing illegal or arbitrary about the cut-off cut off date, nor any illegality ccould ould be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, whenever a cut cut-off off date is fixed, there will always be employees who would not be able to meet that condition; this is an inherent contradiction which cannot be done away with. Therefore, refore, merely on this account a cut cut-off off date cannot be termed unreasonable. The employees not covered under the policy due to the cut cut-off off 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 04:20:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150840 CWP-18133-1999(O&M) 1999(O&M) with CWP-2160-2000(O&M) 2000(O&M) -4- date could be considered in terms of any subsequent policy to be notified by the Government. Besides, the condition regarding regarding condoning the breaks in service up to a period of one month can also not be termed arbitrary or illegal, as it is a beneficial provision to consider adhoc employees for regularisation irrespective of the breaks. The Department has taken a consciou consciouss decision to condone such breaks up to a period of one month, no exception can be taken to it, as there is nothing irrational about it; nor is there any justification to extend the break period to over three/four years to bring the petitioners within the zone of consideration for regularisation.
6. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the petition and it stands dismissed.
7. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 18.11.2024 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 04:20:48 :::