Jasbir Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

CONCLUSION

39.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed in the following terms:

a. The impugned speaking orders dated 02.07.2019 (Annexure P-1) and 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by Respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents/competent authority are directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of the minimum of the pay scale along with Dearness Allowance, at par with the regular corresponding post i.e. Drivers/Conductors etc. of Punjab Roadways w.e.f. 01.04.2026.

a. Furthermore, the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation under The Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016, which continues to hold the field.

b. In the event the petitioners are found not to be covered under the Act of 2016, the respondents shall consider their regularisation in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. Thus, those employees who have rendered more than ten years of service as on the date of filing of the present writ petition, shall be granted the benefit of regularisation. The respondents are directed to pass a speaking order in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order is passed within the aforesaid period, the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized. Upon regularisation, the petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.

40.

It must be clarified that the present judgement is a judgment in rem, intending to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they have approached this Court or not. Reference in this regard must be made to the judgement rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2014(4) SCT 648, wherein the Court, speaking through Justice A.K. Sikri, observed as follows:

“23.

The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1)

Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

(2)

However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3)

However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” (Emphasis added)

41.

Therefore, the respondents shall be duty-bound to extend the benefit of the minimum of the regular pay scale or regularisation, as the case may be, to all similarly situated employees of PUNBUS. Such employees should not be compelled to approach this Court for the aforesaid reliefs and shall be at liberty to submit appropriate representations to the respondents/competent authority within a period of three months from today. Upon receipt of such representations, the respondents shall examine the facts of each case in the light of the present judgment and, if satisfied that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is attracted, extend the benefit of the minimum of the regular pay scale to the concerned employees. Similarly, where such employees are found entitled to regularisation either under The Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016 or in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the said benefit shall also be granted to them. The respondents shall pass reasoned and speaking orders in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representations submitted by the concerned employees.

42.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE March 07, 2026”

“8.

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-3652-2026.

9.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge was being interpreted by the PUNBUS to mean that a direct order for regularizing the services of the respondents has been passed by the learned Single Judge whereas, the minute reading of the impugned order shows that the only direction was given to consider the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services in terms of Punjab Adhoc, Contractual, Daily Wages, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees, Welfare Act, 2016 and the settled principle of law.

10.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as liberty has been given to the PUNBUS to decide the said issue, PUNBUS will pass an appropriate order in terms of the direction given by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.03.2026 qua the claim for the grant of benefit of regularization of the services of the respondents within a period of four weeks from today and the order so passed will be conveyed to the respondents for their information and necessary action and the present appeal may kindly be disposed of as not pressed.

11.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellants, the present appeal is disposed of as not pressed.

12.

Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.”