Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The gamut of the various decisions referred to above is that the Courts have frowned upon and denounced the practice to keep the employees on tenter hooks by continuing them on casual/adhoc basis for a number of years; the fact that the employees are allowed to work on adhoc or casual or daily wage basis for decades together is indicative of the fact that they are deprived of the posts for which there is a positive need and there appears to be existence of permanent nature of work, that it amounts to unfair labour practice if the employees who are performing their duties which involve permanent or regular nature of work, are continued as casual/adhoc or daily wage workers. Non-regularisation on the mere excuse that there are not enough number of vacancies or posts amounts to exploitation of the employees who do not have the bargaining power and that department deliberately adopts the course of taking regular work of permanent nature from the casual/adhoc or daily wage employees with an avowed object of denying them the privilege of regular service and also negating their right to retiral or pensionary benefits. This approach smacks of ante-socialistic stand. The respondents are expected to function like model and enlightended employers and the arguments that regularisation is not possible in the absence of sanctioned posts is wholly untenable. In the matters of the applicants before us, there does not appear to be any financial implication if the posts are created to regularise their services for one simple reason that each one of the applicants is being paid the salary at the minimum of the pay scale as is admissible to their counter-parts. Even without creation of the posts, the applicants have continued to draw the salary and other emoluments as are admissible to the regular employees. Therefore, if new posts are created to accommodate the applicants with a view to regularise their services, the respondent-department is not to be financially burdened in any manner. It is only a question of status and that of service benefits which the applicants may be entitled to derive after they stand superannuated.

12. Inspite of the fact that in the Scheme which was formulated by the respondents and was approved by the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal & Others (supra), that regularisation of the employees is dependent on the availability of vacant posts, we find that the thrust of the subsequent decisions as mentioned above is that it would amount to unfair labour practice if the respondent-department declines regularisation of the service applicants for non-availability of the posts. The very fact that the applicants have been working for the last more than two decades justifies the assertion that they are performing permanent nature of work and that there is a need to retain them in service. It is true that creation of a large number of posts unduly burdens the State and creates some insurmountable problems which the State may not be able to solve or handle. It is the legislature of the State which controls the Consolidated fund out of which the expenditure is to be incurred in giving effect to the Scheme of regularisation of the services of adhoc/casual or daily wage employees. Any directions required to be made by the Courts have to meet the test of judicious restraint. As said in the instant case, there are hardly any financial implications in creating the posts as the applicants are already drawing the minimum of the pay scale as is admissible to the regular employees in the same cadre. Though the applicants shall continue to get minimum of the pay scale with dearness allowance etc., as admissible to the regular employees, new posts can be created without the slightest financial burden. If the work load does not justify the continuance of the newly created posts to regularise the services of the applicants, such posts may be kept in abeyance or disbanded as no longer required. The idea is that the applicants should be regularised in service by creating equal number of posts without any financial burden so that their legitimate claim for retiral or pensionary benefits may not be unjustifiably denied on the lame excuse that the employee ceased to work without holding a regular post, which stand has been taken by the department in the O.As. discussed in the following paragraphs.

13. In O.A. Nos. 1070-CH/2002, 1073-CH/2002, 14-CH/2003 and 40-CH/2003, the respective applicants have retired without regularisation of their services. The O.As. No. 1072-CH/2002 and 1074-CH/2002 have been preferred by the widows of the employees who died after retirement without regularisation of their services. In these O.As., the pensionary and retiral benefits had been denied by the respondents primarily on the ground that the service of the concerned employees had not been regularised and in any case since the period of regular service falls short of ten years' qualifying service, no pensionary benefits can be granted. The employees covered by these O.As. have to be regularised by creating new posts in view of the observations made above. Now the question is whether for computing the period of ten years of regular service, is it permissible to count the service rendered by the employees on daily wage/casual or adhoc basis prior to the regularisation of their services. Mr. Amit Chopra, learned Counsel for the applicants in these O.As. urged that the respondents cannot deny the benefit of service rendered by the concerned employees on adhoc or daily wage basis for the purposes of counting ten years' service for the grant of pension. He placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to fortify his submission. A reference was made to the earlier decision in the case of Mohan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991(3) SCT 147. In that case, the petitioner--Mohan Singh had worked from 21.2.1953 to 30.11.1958 and from 1.12.1958 to 30.11.68 on adhoc basis. The service of the petitioner for purposes of pensionary benefits was counted from the date of his adhoc appointment and since, as an adhoc employee, he rendered service only for 8 years, 11 months and 2 days, he was found not eligible for pension as he had not completed the minimum service of ten years as required under Rule 6.12 (1) of CSR Vol-II. The Hon'ble Court held that-

14. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to deny the retiral/pensionary benefits to the applicants in O.A. Nos. 1070 to 1074-CH of 2002, 14-CH of 2003 and 40-CH of 2003. For purposes of computing 10-years regular service rendered on daily wage, casual or adhoc basis before regularisation of service shall be counted and if the total length of service both before and after regularisation comes to 10 years or more, the concerned employee shall be entitled to the pensionary benefits, irrespective of the fact that part of his service was on adhoc, casual or daily wage'basis. After regularisation of their services, the applicants in the above mentioned six O.As. (1070,1072, 1073 and 1074-CH of 2002, 14 and 40-CH of 2003) are entitled to the pensionary benefits.