Chandigarh
The Punjab and Haryana high court has asserted that an outsourced employee cannot claim regularisation of his services on the basis of a long period of service.
“The court cannot convert an outsourced engagement into direct contractual employment merely on the ground that the petitioners have rendered services for a particular period. Length of service, by itself, does not confer a right to regular appointment or direct contractual appointment. Nor can the court create a mode of recruitment which is not contemplated by the applicable service rules or the governing administrative policy. The petitioners have no legal right to claim conversion of their outsourced services into contractual services,” the high court bench of Justice Namit Kumar observed while dismissing a 2016 plea filed by outsourced patwaris working in the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
The court was hearing a petition filed by outsourced patwaris engaged by GMADA in 2013 through an agency, seeking quashing of the October 2016 decision vide which their services were dispensed with. They were demanding that their services be converted into contractual employment in light of the state government’s November 2016 decision.
GMADA told the court that they had been working as patwaris in the regulatory branch since April 2013. In November 2016, the government took a decision to convert outsourced employees who had completed three years of service on an outsourcing basis into contractual employees.
GMADA maintained that the petitioners were never in its direct employment, as they had never been recruited by the authority, either temporarily, permanently or on a contractual basis. When the consultant withdrew the staff, their services were also dispensed with on October 12, 2016. The November 2016 decision was not applicable to the petitioners.
The court observed that there was no material on record to establish that the petitioners were appointed against any sanctioned post under GMADA or that any employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the authority. “The mere fact that the petitioners performed duties in the office or under the supervision of its officers does not, by itself, create an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the authority,” the court said.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that there was no material on record to establish that the petitioners were appointed against any sanctioned post under GMADA or that any employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the authority. “The mere fact that the petitioners performed duties in the office or under the supervision of its officers does not, by itself, create an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the authority,” the court said.
{{/usCountry}}It also noted that the decision to convert the services of outsourced employees working continuously for more than three years into contractual employees was not applicable in the present case, as the petitioners’ services were dispensed with one month before the decision.
“An employee appointed through an irregular or non-prescribed mode cannot claim regularisation merely because he has continued for a long period. The constitutional scheme governing public employment does not permit appointment through the back door. Any direction for direct appointment of the petitioner, without requiring him to compete with other eligible candidates, would itself offend the rights of other eligible persons under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,” it said while dismissing the plea.