The Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed a single-judge order on regularisation of services of outsourced workers of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (PRTC).
The high court bench of justice Sanjay Vashisth passed the order on the plea from corporation in which it was stated that the issue regarding regularisation is already pending adjudication before the court and listed for hearing on August 31.
“In the meanwhile, a status quo with regard to the services of private respondents shall be maintained by the department concerned,” the court ordered, while seeking response by August 31 from those workers in whose favour the single judge had passed the order.
On April 22, a single-judge bench had ordered regularisation of services of 90-odd workers hired between 2014-2021. The court directed the appellant to regularise them within six weeks from the date of order, failing which, they will be deemed to be regularised.
Corporation counsel Abhilaksh Gaind had submitted that these workers were hired though a private agency, which was not even made party before the single judge. There was no direct employee-employer relationship of these workers with the corporation. Hence, the single judge bench should not have allowed the petition of these workers seeking regularisation of services, Gaind had argued.
The plea said “the impugned judgment suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity inasmuch as it grants relief without recording essential jurisdictional findings and without undertaking the legally mandated scrutiny, namely: whether there existed sanctioned posts; whether vacancies were available against sanctioned strength; what recruitment rules governed the posts; whether the writ petitioners possessed eligibility and were engaged through a transparent process consistent with those rules; and whether roster requirements were complied with,” the plea said adding that single judge bench erred in overlooking that the statutory recruitment rules, sanctioned cadre strength, reservation roster requirements and financial concurrence cannot be overlooked and the authority like the appellant, does not possess independent authority to regularise appointments outside the rules.
{{/usCountry}}The plea said “the impugned judgment suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity inasmuch as it grants relief without recording essential jurisdictional findings and without undertaking the legally mandated scrutiny, namely: whether there existed sanctioned posts; whether vacancies were available against sanctioned strength; what recruitment rules governed the posts; whether the writ petitioners possessed eligibility and were engaged through a transparent process consistent with those rules; and whether roster requirements were complied with,” the plea said adding that single judge bench erred in overlooking that the statutory recruitment rules, sanctioned cadre strength, reservation roster requirements and financial concurrence cannot be overlooked and the authority like the appellant, does not possess independent authority to regularise appointments outside the rules.
{{/usCountry}}