Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On the strength of the above observations as well as other decisions of the Apex Court, the applicants are claiming regularisation of their services which has been denied to them by the respondents on the ground of non-availability of the vacancies or posts. The relief for 'equal pay for equal work' with Dearness Allowance (DA) as has been allowed to the counterparts employed on similar basis was also granted.

4. At this stage, it would be quite appropriate and pertinent to point out that the respondent-department had issued orders for the grant of wages or salary to the applicants and other similarly circumstanced employees at the minimum of the pay scale as is admissible to their counter-parts appointed on regular basis, besides payment of 60% of the Dearness Allowance in terms of the order of the Apex Court as well as this Tribunal. Therefore, the relief claimed by the applicants, in so far as it relates to the payment of salary and D.A., stands satisfied. The prayer in the present O.As. is, therefore, confined only to the relief of regularisation of the services of the applicants by creating requisite number of new posts.

10. Besides the above decision of the Apex Court, the learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Bala and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2002(2) SCT 1035. In the said case, it was nowhere provided in the policy framed for regularisation that there should be a regular post available for regularisation of the services. It was held that once a policy is formulated by the State then it is under obligation to regularise the services of the employees who satisfy the ingredients provided therein. It was further observed that even if there is any such stipulation (i.e. there should be a regular vacant post available for regularisation), the same is not sustainable in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dherender Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P., 1986(1) LLJ 134, wherein it is clearly held that non-availability of a post is no ground for rejecting regularisation of the employees, if they are otherwise eligible. There is yet another decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Raldu Ram etc. v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 10774 of 1999 decided on 4.2.2000 in which the following observations were made:-

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-

In the case of Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1999(5) SLR 497, the pensionary benefits were denied to the petitioner on the ground that his services were less than ten years. Instructions had been issued by the Government whereby the daily wage workers were regularised on 20.1.1995. The petitioner had 13 years of service to his credit. It was held that if a temporary or adhoc service is followed by regular service, the entire period of service shall count for purposes of pension. There is yet another decision of the same High Court in the case of Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) SCT 650 in which, relying upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab through the Secretary, PWD B&R, Chandigarh and Ors., 1988(2) PLR 223, it was held that the period of service rendered by an employee on work charge basis prior to regularisation of his services, has to be considered as qualifying service while determining the pension. In Kewal Singh's case, the petitioner had admittedly served the department for more than 15 years. Apparently, there was nothing against him which could disentitle him to get pension. It was held that mere failure of the Government to sanction a regular post, should not result in deprivation of the pension at the end of the service. It was directed that the petitioner's case of regularisation of his services prior to the date of his retirement shall be considered and thereafter his claim for pension shall be re-examined and whatever is found due, shall be paid to him. In CWP No. 19732 of 2001--Hazura Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., decided on 14.1.2003, the law on the point was elaborately discussed and it was concluded that the service rendered on the establishment, even on casual or daily rated basis, is to be counted as qualifying service. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to re-determine the retiral benefits after taking into consideration the adhoc/temporary service of one year, six months and 20 days rendered by the petitioners.