Sada Shiv Yadav v. State of Punjab and Others

IN

Sada Shiv Yada

Lal Chand vs. S

Dharam Pal vs

CORAM: HO

Present : Mr

Mr

Mr AMAN CHAUD

1.

The of together.

2.

The regularize the s

17.11.2011, 18.0

3.

Lea petitioners in ot however, their covered under

17.11.2011 (Ann and others vs. which SLP stan of Punjab an

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA

av vs. State of Punjab and othe State of Punjab and others . State of Punjab and others ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN r. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate f r. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, P r. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for r ***** DHARY, J. (ORAL) ese cases involve similar issues e present petitions have been fil services of the petitioners und

01.1995, 23.01.2001 and 15.12.2 arned counsel for the petitioner w 0 were appointed on Class-IV ther petitions also on the same p services have not been regular the Policies dated 23.01.200 nexures P3 to P6), as also the ju . Surjit Kaur, LPA-771-2015 nds dismissed vide judgment dat d others, CWP-18202-2019, NJAB & HARYANA ARH Date of decision: 23.08.2024 ers N CHAUDHARY

for the petitioner. unjab. respondent Nos.2 and 3. and therefore, are being dispos led for directing the respondents er the Policies dated 18.03.20 2006. would submit that the petitioners V posts (part-time basis) and t posts on full time daily wage bas rized despite their cases are bei 01, 15.12.2006, 18.03.2011 a udgment passed in State of Punj , decided on 29.04.2016, agai ted 09.12.2016; Ram Pal vs. Sta pronounced on 04.12.2023 a

sed s to 11, s in sis, ing jab nst

Amrish Sharm decided on 26.0

4.

Ref working on part the present petit

ma and others vs. State of Punj

2.2024. ferring to the case of Surjit Ka t-time basis as a sweeper, was gr tion, the relevant paras thereof re "Having held that, it m decision dated 4th March, 19 launched by the State o Constitutional obligations. achieve a laudable object employees on those Class service for 10 years or mor contemplates adjustment o against 25% vacancies whic the policy has come into forc that due to nonavailability unable to achieve the object those case where part-time superannuation, it was imper modulate the same so that promise or a mirage. Should such a policy r percolate to net-end benefic long span of 30 years of s retirement, is a question whic to have addressed instead of We are sure that the S aspect of the matter and r manner that services of C regularized at least before on in case, regular vacancy do case, such employee shall be immediate before his retirem interpretation is the only e object. Suffice to observe decision is permissible und Bench decision in Secretary vs Umadevi And Others, 20 In the light of the ab held entitled to the benefits o as have been granted by the l ab and others, CWP-19238-20 aur (supra), wherein the petition ranted similar benefit as claimed ead thus: may be further seen that the poli 999 is undeniably a welfare schem of Punjab in deference to The policy has been issued to confer the status of regu IV part-employees who are re. It may be true that the poli f part-time Class IV employe ch were to become available af ce. However, if the authorities fi of requisite vacancies, they we and purpose of the policy, even employee has reached the age rative upon them to re-visit and it does not turn out to be a fa remain on papers or its object m ciaries, at least to those who, af service, have attained the age ch the authorities themselves oug awaiting for the court directions State of Punjab will look into t re-structure the policy in such Class IV part-time employees a ne attains the age of retirement a oes not become available, in th e taken to have been made regu ment. Such a liberal and pragma effective modicum to achieve that recourse to such a poli der the mandate of Constituti y, State Of Karnataka And othe 006(4) SCC 1. bove discussion, the respondent of liberal construction of the poli learned Single Judge.

13, ner, d in icy me its to ular in icy ees fter find ere n in of re-alse must fter of ght s. this h a are hat ular atic its icy ers t is

5.

In wage basis, was relevant paras w

6.

Thi employees seek

For the reasons afore-this appeal. Accordingly, the Ram Pal (supra), the petitione s held to be considered for regul whereof read thus: "4. Learned counsel submi Government had issued a po of those work charged/da employees who had comp service on the date of is petitioner who had been therefore, ought to have b under the said policy. Lear regularization policy was Government in the year 20 regularization was not cons suit seeking attention to the be regularized. The learned decree dated 25.03.2015, he to the department for regul State will pass orders accord xx

xx

¶6This Court expresses its a which the respondents have d for regularization. Admitted initially does not reflect tha part time employee and it m appointed on daily wage basi for regularization. Even if it he may have only completed service and as on 2017, he h of service. He, therefore, was of the subsequent policy of Government. This Court i Punjab others, C

23.09.2002 and in Kanta others, CWP-1933-2014, de action of the respondents in petitioner therein to be illega is Court in the case of Amrish king regularization into regular p stated, we do not find any merit e same is dismissed." er, appointed as sweeper on da larization as well as other benef its that on 23.01.2001, the St olicy for regularization of servic aily wages and other categor pleted three years of continuo ssuance of the said policy. T appointed on 1999-2000-200 een considered for regularizati rned counsel further submits th again invoked by the St 011 but the petitioner's case sidered, he, therefore, filed a ci fact that his services are liable trial Court vide its judgment a eld that the petitioner would app larization of his services and t ingly.

xx anguish to the mode and manner dealt with the case of the petition dly, the appointment order pass at the petitioner was appointed merely says that the petitioner w is. Thus, the petitioner was entitl t is noticed that as on 23.01.200 d 2 years, 10 months and 20 days had already put in almost 19 ye s entitled to be regularized in ter regularization issued by the St in Sukhdev Kaur vs. State CWP-12199-2000, decided Rani vs. State of Punjab a ecided on 28.10.2014 also held t not regularizing the services of t al and unjustified." Singh (supra), which pertained posts after acquiring over 10 ye

t in aily fits, tate ces ries ous The 01, hat tate for ivil e to ply r in ner sed as was led 01, s of ars rms tate of on d to

of service by th daily wagers wh reads thus:

he year 2006, observed that reg ho have served for a substantia "35. In the case in hand, regularization policy which per Policy of 2006 read with has completed service of 10 2006 is eligible for regular a Class 'D' employees. Few pe affidavits, during the pen regularized and remaining h lack of permanent/sanctione has framed another policy created. There was no mini their appointment. They wit decades. They are assign repeatedly have held that minimum qualification esp effectively discharging his justified, on the ground of benefit of regularization to decades and is assigned dutie xx xx Conclusion:

¶47In the wake of above d comes to conclusion as below

i) This Court in the n create or sanction posts.

ii) The petitioners who by the end of Decemb service or have already and they cannot be deni lack of sanctioned qualification. To avoid clarified that from the d they shall be entitled dearness allowance and and thereafter regular pa

iii) The petitioners wh complete service of 10 2006 would form part Policy. The State, in employees, would not They from the date of gularization policy is applicable al period, relevant portion where the respondent in 2006 fram was followed by 2011 Policy. h policy of 2011, an employee w 0 years by the end of Decemb appointment. All the petitioners etitioners, as confirmed in differ ndency of litigation have be have not been regularized due ed pasts. The respondent in 20 whereby dying cadre has be imum qualification at the time thout interruption are working ed duties of Class IV. Cou long experience is as good pecially when an employee duties. Thus, it would not f minimum qualification, to de an employee who is working es of class IV i.e. lowest rung. xx discussion and findings, this Co w: normal course cannot ask State

had completed service of 10 ye er' 2006, either at present are retired, are entitled to regular p ied regularization on the ground post or minimum educati burden on State exchequer, it deemed date of their regularizatio to minimum of pay scale p grade pay till the date of this ord ay scale. ho are still in service but did n 0 years by the end of Decemb of dying cadre created by 20 view of long service of the insist for minimum qualificatio f completing service of 10 ye

to eof med As who ber' are ent een to een of for urts as is be eny for ourt to ars in ost d of t is on, lus der not ber' ese on.

7.

Lea Nos.2 and 3 des and draw out an contrary law.

8.

In terms Policies d judgments passe

9.

Pho

23.08.2024 ashok

Whether s

Whether r

would be entitled to mi allowance plus grade pa in terms of 2023 Policy.

iv) The petitioners wh years by the end of D pendency of present l passed away would be plus dearness allowance completing service of retirement or death.

v) The petitioners who

31.12.2016 shall not be benefit because they are salary for last couple of

vi) The respondent-Stat on arrears arising on acc

arned State counsel as well as spite their best efforts was unabl ny distinctive aspects in the afo view of the aforesaid, the pre dated 23.01.2001, 15.12.2006, ed in Surjit Kaur, Ram Pal and otocopy of this order be placed o

(A

speaking/reasoned

: reportable

: inimum of pay scale plus dearn ay till the date they are regulariz

ho did not complete service of December' 2006 and during t litigation have superannuated entitled to minimum of pay sc e and grade pay from the date 10 years till the date of th have already been regularized entitled to any additional financ e already getting higher amount years. te shall not be liable to pay inter count of re-fixation of pay." s learned counsel for responde le to controvert the factual positi orementioned judgment or cite a esent petitions are disposed of,

18.03.2011 & 17.11.2011 and t d Amrish Sharma (supra). on the connected files. AMAN CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE

ess zed or ale of heir by cial t of rest ent any