Nimmo @ Nimmo Rani vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Moudgil, J

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), whereby her claim for regularization of services under the Punjab Government Policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-2) has been rejected, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize her services with all consequential benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the Observation Home, Faridkot on 13.04.1994 and has continued to work without any break since then. She was performing sweeping, cleaning and other ancillary duties and was being paid at DC rates. The petitioner completed more than ten years of continuous part-time service by 12.04.2004.

The State Government issued a policy dated 04.03.1999 for regularization of part-time Class-IV employees who had completed ten years or more of service, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner claims that, having completed the requisite period of service, she became eligible for consideration for regularization under the said policy.

The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 21797 of 2024 seeking regularization of her services. The said petition was disposed of on 03.09.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide her legal notice within eight weeks. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed a speaking order dated 18.12.2024 declining her claim for regularization, primarily on the ground that her initial appointment did not fulfil the requirement regarding appointment through Employment Exchange or open advertisement. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 13.04.1994 and has continued to discharge her duties without any break. Having completed more than ten years of continuous part-time service by 12.04.2004, she became eligible for consideration of her services under the Punjab Government Policy dated 04.03.1999.

Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 wrongly rejects the petitioner's claim on the ground that her initial appointment was not through the Employment Exchange or open advertisement. It is argued that this condition, contained in Clause 2(A)(iv) of the Policy dated 04.03.1999, had already been struck down by this Court in Paramjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.16655 of 2003, decided on 15.03.2004, as being unsustainable. Therefore, the respondents could not have relied upon the said condition to deny consideration of the petitioner's claim.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had completed the requisite ten years of service much prior to 10.04.2006 and, therefore, her case is squarely covered by the subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2022 in LPA No.95 of 2019, wherein part-time employees who had completed ten years of service on or before 10.04.2006 were held entitled to consideration under the Policy dated 04.03.1999.

It is accordingly contended that, in view of the petitioner's more than three decades of continuous service and the aforesaid legal position, the impugned order has been passed by ignoring the applicable policy and binding judicial pronouncements and is therefore liable to be quashed, with a consequential direction to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to regularization as she does not fulfil the conditions prescribed under the Punjab Government Policy dated 04.03.1999, particularly the requirement of initial appointment through the Employment Exchange or open advertisement. It is further submitted that she had not completed ten years of service on the date of issuance of the said policy.

Learned counsel contends that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable, as the employees therein fulfilled the requisite conditions of the Policy, whereas the petitioner admittedly does not satisfy the aforesaid requirement.

It is further submitted that the petitioner's engagement was purely on part-time basis from the contingency fund and was not pursuant to any formal appointment order issued through the prescribed procedure; therefore, mere length of service does not confer any vested right to regularization.

Lastly, learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 is a reasoned and speaking order passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and considering the applicable policy and judicial precedents. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 13.04.1994 and has admittedly continued in service for more than three decades. She had completed ten years of continuous service by 12.04.2004. The State itself had framed the Policy dated 04.03.1999 specifically for consideration of part-time employees having ten years or more of service for regularization.

The principal reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not initially appointed through the Employment Exchange or by open advertisement. This ground, however, cannot be accepted. The requirement contained in Clause 2(A)(iv) of the Policy had already been dealt with by this Court in Paramjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-16655-2003. Once the said condition stood judicially disapproved, the respondents could not have resurrected the same condition and made it the sole basis for rejecting the petitioner's claim.

The subsequent Division Bench judgment in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others v. Surinder Singh and others, LPA No.95 of 2019, decided on 23.12.2022, assumes particular significance. The Division Bench, while examining the very Policy dated 04.03.1999, held that employees who had completed ten years of service as on 10.04.2006 were required to be considered for regularization without the bar of non-appointment through the Employment Exchange or open advertisement. The petitioner had completed the requisite ten years as early as April, 2004 and thus satisfies this essential requirement.

This Court is of the considered view that the expression "one-time measure" cannot be construed so narrowly as to defeat the legitimate claim of an otherwise eligible employee who has rendered the requisite length of service, merely on account of the failure of the authorities to undertake the requisite exercise within the stipulated period. The object of such a measure is to extend consideration to all employees who satisfy the prescribed conditions, and not to deprive an eligible employee of such consideration due to an administrative lapse on the part of the authorities.

This Court is further of the view that a distinction has to be maintained between an appointment which is illegal and one which is merely irregular. An appointment cannot be treated as illegal merely on account of the manner in which it was initially made, particularly where there is no material to demonstrate fraud, misrepresentation or violation of any statutory prohibition. In the present case, the respondents have not pointed to any such circumstance and their objection essentially rests upon the mode of the petitioner's initial engagement. Such objection, by itself, cannot be permitted to defeat consideration of the petitioner's claim, particularly in view of the judicial history surrounding Clause 2(A)(iv).

The said principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where the petitioner has continuously worked for more than thirty years. The respondents cannot, on the one hand, continue to utilise her services for such an exceptionally long period and, on the other, deny consideration under the very policy framed for the benefit of part-time employees by relying upon a condition which had already been judicially interfered with.

The judgment of this Court in Surjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, CWP-7839-2003, decided on 06.10.2020, is also instructive. In that case too, a part-time Sweeper who had rendered long service did not satisfy the requirement of appointment through the Employment Exchange/open advertisement; nevertheless, this Court considered the effect of the earlier judgments concerning the Policy dated 04.03.1999 and held that such long-serving part-time employees could not be denied the benefit of regularization on that ground alone.

Thus, the issue is not whether every part-time employee is entitled to automatic regularization merely by virtue of long service. The question in the present case is narrower: whether the respondents could reject the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of Clause 2(A)(iv), despite the said requirement having already been judicially interfered with and despite the petitioner having completed the requisite ten years of service well before the relevant cut-off date. The answer, in the considered view of this Court, has to be in the negative.

The impugned order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), therefore, proceeds on a ground which could not legally have been invoked against the petitioner. The order is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for regularization under the Policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-2), without insisting upon the requirement contained in Clause 2(A)(iv), and after verifying compliance with the other surviving conditions of the Policy. The necessary exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any shall disposed off.