Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders Regularization of Long-Serving Daily Wager

Court terms denial of regularization as discriminatory and violative of constitutional rights, directs State to act fairly towards employees.

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Haryana to regularize the services of Krishna Devi, a daily wager employed as a Sewer Helper since 1997, whose service was terminated in 2011 but reinstated by a Labour Court in 2016. The court found the denial of regularization to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, emphasizing that continuity of service granted by a judicial order confers a legally enforceable right to regularization.

The petitioner, Krishna Devi, has been engaged with the respondent department since 1997 and was arbitrarily terminated in 2011. A Labour Court ruled her termination illegal, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions under the Haryana Government's Regularization Policies of 2003 and 2004, her request for regularization was denied, prompting her to approach the High Court.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, presiding over the case, highlighted that the withdrawal of the regularization policies does not extinguish accrued rights. The court criticized the respondent's actions as hostile discrimination, noting that other similarly situated employees had been regularized under the same policies. The judgment clarified that the Supreme Court's ruling in Uma Devi was intended to prevent backdoor appointments, not to deny regularization to employees with long, continuous, judicially protected service.

The court further invoked the Model Employer Doctrine, asserting that the State has an obligation to act fairly and consistently towards its employees. It ordered the State to regularize Krishna Devi with all consequential benefits, including arrears and interest at 6% per annum, within a month.

This judgment reinforces the legal position that continuity of service, as granted by a judicial order, confers upon the petitioner a right for all consequential purposes, including regularization. It also underscores the principle that administrative withdrawal of policies cannot retrospectively defeat accrued rights or legitimate expectations.

The decision is expected to have significant implications for similarly situated employees seeking regularization, as it upholds the constitutional promise of equality and fair treatment in public employment.

Bottom Line:

Service Law - Regularization of daily wage employee - Petitioner deemed to have completed continuous service under a judicial award - Denial of regularization despite similar benefits granted to others amounts to hostile discrimination.

Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Haryana Government's Regularization Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004, Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, Model Employer Doctrine.

Krishna Devi v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821294