Read Order: Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, April 7, 2022: In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board versus Ranjodh Singh and others and Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC & Others v. K.V. Ramana & Otherspertaining to the bar on regularization of contractual employees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-employee (contractual) impugning order of concerned entity dispensing with his service. 

In the above-cited precedents, the Top Court opined that the employees appointed on a contractual basis without any advertisement and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, do not have the right to regularization.

The bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal also observed, 

“There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had been appointed in response to an advertisement or in accordance with the rules. The appointment was purely on a contractual basis.”

The petitioner was aggrieved by the order which dispensed with his (petitioner’s) services without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It was the case of the Counsel that the petitioner served for over four years and was entitled to regularization of his services in terms of the instructions issued by the State Government. 

Per contra, the counsel for the third respondent stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on a contractual basis only for a period of three months without any advertisement and therefore, his services could not be regularized. In order to substantiate his case, he relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Supra) and Accounts Officer (A&I) APSRTC & others (Supra) and Mahender Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others [P&H HC]. 

The undisputed facts of the matter, the notice of which was taken by Justice Grewal was that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on August 25, 1999, on a contractual basis for a period of three months. Subsequently, his services were extended. However, by the order dated November 14, 2003, his services were dispensed with. 

From the above stated factual situation, the Court opined that there was thus nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was appointed in response to an advertisement or in accordance with the rules and that the appointment was purely on a contractual basis. 

Further, in light of the ratio of the Supreme Court in the above-stated cases, the Court dismissed the petition finding it devoid of merits. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment