Gurdev Kaur and Others vs Secretary to Govt. (Punjab) Department of Education and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Are the class IV employees working on part-time basis entitled to the regularisation of their services? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these five petitions.

The petitioners are working as Sweeper and Water Carriers in different schools in the State of Punjab. The petitioners maintain that they have been in the service for the last 15 to 20 years. They had started with an initial pay of Rs. 8/- per month. Their wages have gradually risen to Rs. 275/- and then to Rs. 300/- per month. Having worked for so long, the petitioner claim that they have a right to be regularised on their respective posts. In particular, the petitioners have pointed out that the State Government had issued instructions regarding regularisation of the services of persons appointed on ad hoc work- charged casual and daily wage basis. In these circumstances, it was inter alia mentioned that even the "contingent paid temporary staff on part-time basis in the police battalion of the police department such as cooks, dhobies, barbers, mochies, tailors, carpenters, masons, sweepers, water carriers...." shall also be covered. The petitioners maintain that if those who are working on part-time basis in the police department are being considered for regularisation, there is no ground to treat them differently. The petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench in Swaran Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., CWP No. 2117 of 1997, decided on July 17, 1997, wherein the claim of the part-time employees working in the educational institutions like the petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to regularise their services.

The respondents contest the petitioners'' claim. It has been submitted by way of a preliminary objection that there are no instructions "to regularise the services of part-time workers.." Thus, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief. On merits, it has been stated that the petitioners had been engaged to work on part-time basis from 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours at the rate prescribed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner from time to time. It has been further stated that the appointments on regular posts are made on the basis of selection by the Subordinate Selection Board or the Departmental Selection Committee. There is no provision for regularisation of the part-time employees, and consequently they have no right to the grant of any relief. Since, the claim and the controversy is identical in all the cases. It is not necessary to make any separate reference to the pleadings in each of the cases.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

It is undoubtedly correct that the departments are the best judges of their needs. It is also true that the Government has the right to create posts, prescribe scales of pay and to lay down conditions of service. It can do the needful either through statutory rules or by executive orders. It is also indisputable that the State Government has been periodically issuing instructions for the regularisation of the services of persons who had been recruited on ad hoc, work-charged or even daily wage basis. In accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to time, the services of a very large section of the employees who had not even been recruited in accordance with the prescribed norms have been regularised. As a result, even those persons who had never faced a Selection Board and had merely managed to make a back-door entry into the services of the State, have now become regular employees. Regularisation really appears to have been employed to regularise the irregular. However, this is the result of the State''s own action in issuing periodic instructions to regularise the services of the ad hoc employees.

It is in the background of this factual position that the claim made by the petitioners in these cases and the question as posed at the outset have to be considered.

It is not disputed that the petitioners had been working on different posts for the last many years like 15 to 20 years. It is also the admitted position that the petitioners are getting a paltry sum in lieu of the duties performed by them. It is further established on the record that in the case of part-time employees working in the police department, directions for creation of regular posts and the regularisation of the services have already been given. Why has this benefit been confined to the personnel in the Police Department? No reason whatsoever has been disclosed in the written statement.

Since the petitioners have been working on their respective posts for the last 15 to 20 years, it is clearly established that there is work and there is a need to have the posts. That being so, there appears to be no justification whatsoever for denying the benefit of regularisation to persons who are not working in the Police Department. In a sense, all part-time employees are similarly situated. In the absence of a valid criteria for classification they constitute a single homogeneous class. They have a right to be treated alike. Any differential treatment without disclosing a valid basis would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This appears to be the situation in the present case.

Keeping in view the fact that the number of part-time employees in various departments is fairly significant as also the fact that pay scales etc. for these posts have not been fixed or sanctioned, it appears to be appropriate to direct that the State Government shall draw up a policy on the same lines as it has in case of the part-time employees in the Police Department within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It will also fix reasonable scale of pay for employees after taking into consideration the nature of duties and the level of responsibility etc. Thereafter, the claims of the part-time employees shall be considered in accordance with the policy. The exercise should be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition are accordingly disposed of. No costs.