E-Paper
Punjab and Haryana HC slams exploitative contract hiring by govts
The court was hearing a petition regarding regularisation of services which was pending since 2017, where eight JEs appointed by Chandigarh MC between 2007-10 after a due process were ignored for regularisation of services
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has slammed governments for not making regular recruitments and going for large scale appointments of employees on contract and outsourced basis.
The court was hearing a petition regarding regularisation of services which was pending since 2017, where eight junior engineers (JEs) appointed by the Chandigarh municipal corporation between 2007-10 after a due process were ignored for regularisation of services.
The HC bench of justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the decision by the Supreme Court in the Uma Devi case cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking a legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularisation.
In 2006, the Supreme Court constitution bench had held that regularisation of contractual or part-time employees would amount to legalisation of backdoor entrants.
“The states/UT have made hay from the findings of the constitution bench. They have started making appointment on contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every department, including education, which is a character and nation building department. Many teachers appointed on contract basis are getting minuscule pay in comparison to regularly appointed peons. The exchequer is siphoned off for subsidies instead of appointing regular employees and paying regular pay scale,” the bench remarked while ordering regularisation of services of the MC junior engineers within six weeks.
The court found that petitioners are not back-door entrants. The MC passed a resolution in 2012 that their services should be regularised, but they were not considered. The court also found that Group-D employees/daily wagers were appointed and their services were regularised, and now getting salary more than JEs.
The court further said that the Supreme Court in 2006, in case of exigencies, had permitted to make appointment on contract basis, and did not permit states and its agencies to make it a routine practice.
“The court had emphasised to make appointments in public employment after following procedure prescribed for regular recruitment and in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Intention and imprimatur of the court was to inhibit and discourage back-door entry. The court did not permit to make contractual recruitment for infinity and pay minimum of pay scale,” the court remarked.
The court observed that the administration did not make regular appointments in the teeth of Supreme Court judgments and on the other hand despite following due appointment procedure has kept the petitioners contractual for more than 15 years.
“..the government being a model employer neither can exploit its citizen nor take advantage of mass unemployment. It is expected to make recruitment in accordance with prescribed procedure and on permanent basis. It cannot keep hanging the sword of termination,” the court added, ordering that if no order of regularisation is passed within six weeks, they shall be deemed to be regularised and would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of six weeks period.
It further underlined that high courts should not ordinarily direct absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
However, a total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration, and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that when securing it brings at least some succour to them.
