# STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.ETC v. PIARA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1992] 3 S.C.R. 826
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1992-08-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2979 of 1992
- **Bench:** A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, B.P. Jeevan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-haryana-and-ors-etc-etc-v-piara-singh-and-ors-etc-etc-11513
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

Civil Services :
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Articles I4, 16, 32, 136, 226 and 309-Regularisation/absorption of ad
hoc and temporary employees of State Governments and work-charged
employees, daily wage workers and casual labou-,.-{)irections of High
Court-Justification of-Orders of State Government prescribing eligibility
criteria for regularisation-Whether arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatoryD Interference by Court in service matters-when w01Tanted- Guidelines for
regularisation issued
E
F
Over the last several years a large number of appointments were
made to Class III and IV services in the two appellant States on ad hoc
basis, i.e., without reference to Public Service Commission or the Subordinate Services Selection Board and without adhering to employment
exchange requireinents. As a result, a large number of ad hoc employees
were continuing for several years without being regularised and were
agitating for their regularisation. To meet the situation, both the appellant Governments issued orders from time to time for regu,larisation of
such employees subject to certain conditions.
In pursuance of these orders a number of persons, wh~ satisfied the.
conditions prescribed in each ofthose orders were regularised, but many
could not be, for the reason that they did not satisfy one or the other of
G the conditions prescribed in the said orders. They were, however, allowed·
to continue in service. This category of people approached the High Court
praying for issuance of writ, order or direction for regularisation of their
service. They contended that the conditions in the said orders were arbitrary,. discriminatory and unrelated to the object.
H
The work-charged employees, daily-wagers, casual labour and those
826
)-
STATE v. PIARA SINGH
827
~-
employed in temporary/time-bound projects also approached the High A
Court for regularisation of their senices·. Some of the petitioners also
pleaded for equal pay for equal work.
Accepting the pleas of the petitioners, the High Court gave certain .
directions to the appellant-States for regularisation of these employees.
Aggrieved by the High Court's orders, the two appellant States filed
appeals before this Court. Some of the employees also filed Writ PetitiOns
before this Court directly, contending that they too were governed by '~e
directions given by the High Court and that they should be given the
benefit of the same.
On behalf of the appellants the validity and correctness of the
directions given by the High Court were questioned on the grounds that
B
c
the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in virtually amending the
Government orders and was not justified in holding that the faxation of a D
particular date in the respective Government orders was arbitrary and/or
that it· was unrelated to the object sought to be achieved; that the High
Court also erred in holding that the requirement of having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange was invalid; that the High Court was
not justified in directing that all persons who had put in one year's senice
should be regularised unconditionally; and that such a direction would E
give rise to several difficulties and complications for the administration,
that there could not be a direction for regularisation, without a post or a
vacancy and the Government could not be directed to create postS without
number, and it was beyond the capacity of any Government to comply wit~
such directions; that the direction with respect to work-charged estabF
lishment, casual labour and daily wagers was equally unsustainable ·in
law; that the rule prescribing minimum qualifying senice of one year in
one State could not be thrust upon the other State; that because of the
directions in question, while regularly selected persons would be kept out
of jobs, unqualified ineligible persons who had come through back ·door'.
and whose records of senice might also not be satisfactory would be G
regularised at one go and the rule of reservation would als

## Text

_Characters 0–39,605 of 101,179. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39605 for what follows._

A
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.ETC.
v.
PIARA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
AUGUST 12, 1992
B
[A.M. AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]
Civil Services :
Constitution of India, 1950:
c
Articles I4, 16, 32, 136, 226 and 309-Regularisation/absorption of ad
hoc and temporary employees of State Governments and work-charged
employees, daily wage workers and casual labou-,.-{)irections of High
Court-Justification of-Orders of State Government prescribing eligibility
criteria for regularisation-Whether arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatoryD Interference by Court in service matters-when w01Tanted- Guidelines for
regularisation issued
E
F
Over the last several years a large number of appointments were
made to Class III and IV services in the two appellant States on ad hoc
basis, i.e., without reference to Public Service Commission or the Subordinate Services Selection Board and without adhering to employment
exchange requireinents. As a result, a large number of ad hoc employees
were continuing for several years without being regularised and were
agitating for their regularisation. To meet the situation, both the appellant Governments issued orders from time to time for regu,larisation of
such employees subject to certain conditions.
In pursuance of these orders a number of persons, wh~ satisfied the.
conditions prescribed in each ofthose orders were regularised, but many
could not be, for the reason that they did not satisfy one or the other of
G the conditions prescribed in the said orders. They were, however, allowed·
to continue in service. This category of people approached the High Court
praying for issuance of writ, order or direction for regularisation of their
service. They contended that the conditions in the said orders were arbitrary,. discriminatory and unrelated to the object.
H
The work-charged employees, daily-wagers, casual labour and those
826
)-
STATE v. PIARA SINGH
827
~-
employed in temporary/time-bound projects also approached the High A
Court for regularisation of their senices·. Some of the petitioners also
pleaded for equal pay for equal work.
Accepting the pleas of the petitioners, the High Court gave certain .
directions to the appellant-States for regularisation of these employees.
Aggrieved by the High Court's orders, the two appellant States filed
appeals before this Court. Some of the employees also filed Writ PetitiOns
before this Court directly, contending that they too were governed by '~e
directions given by the High Court and that they should be given the
benefit of the same.
On behalf of the appellants the validity and correctness of the
directions given by the High Court were questioned on the grounds that
B
c
the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in virtually amending the
Government orders and was not justified in holding that the faxation of a D
particular date in the respective Government orders was arbitrary and/or
that it· was unrelated to the object sought to be achieved; that the High
Court also erred in holding that the requirement of having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange was invalid; that the High Court was
not justified in directing that all persons who had put in one year's senice
should be regularised unconditionally; and that such a direction would E
give rise to several difficulties and complications for the administration,
that there could not be a direction for regularisation, without a post or a
vacancy and the Government could not be directed to create postS without
number, and it was beyond the capacity of any Government to comply wit~
such directions; that the direction with respect to work-charged estabF
lishment, casual labour and daily wagers was equally unsustainable ·in
law; that the rule prescribing minimum qualifying senice of one year in
one State could not be thrust upon the other State; that because of the
directions in question, while regularly selected persons would be kept out
of jobs, unqualified ineligible persons who had come through back ·door'.
and whose records of senice might also not be satisfactory would be G
regularised at one go and the rule of reservation would also be violated·.
and that it was the prerogative of the Executive to create and abolish '
posts, and that the Government could not be compelled to create posts ·.
where there was no need for such posts or where the need is no longer '
~
.
H
)-
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992) 3 S.c.R.
A
It was contended on behalf or the respondents and tile writ
_)__
·petitioners that the directions had been given with a view to ant. die
arliitrarlness or the authorities and with a view to give a satldadory
solution to a human problem created by the policies or the Gowrameats
themselves, that the work-charged employees should be treated -
par
B
with ad hoc employees and ought to be regularised on the 1st or April or
each year, and all those persons who were working in the permanent posts
ought to be i-egularised.
Disposing or the cases, this Court,
c
HELD : U. Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolltioll of a
post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again ... t lays
down the conditions or service subject, or course, to a la~ made by the
appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of senk:e
can be exercised either by making Rules under the proviso to Artkle 309
/~-
or the Constitution or (in the absence or such Rules) by issuing ltu)es/ha.
D structions in exercise or its executive power. The court comes into the
picture only to ensure observance or fundamental rights, statutory
provisions, Rules and other instructions, if any, governing the conditions
of service. The main concern or the court in such matters is to ensure the
Rule or law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal
E
to Its employees consistent with the requirements or Articles 14 and 16. It
-,,
also means that the State should not exploit its empIOyees nor sh0'8hl It
seek to take advantage or the helplessness and misery or either die anemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. (847 F-H]
_,_....
1.2. The State must be a model employer. It is for this reason it ls
F
held that equal pay must be given· for equal work, which is indeed one or
the directive principles of the Constitution and that a person should not
4
be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. [848AJ
1.3. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for Iona,
G die court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and
accordingly directs regularisation. While all the situations in which the
ceart may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed, it is sufficient to
indicate that the guiding principles are the ones indicated above. [848B]
rDharwad Distt. P. W .D. Literature Daily Wage Employees' Association
H v. State of Kamataka and Ors., (1990) 2 S.C.C. 396 and Jacob v. Kera/a
STATE v. PIARA SINGH
. 829
Water Authoriiy, (1990] Suppl. 1 S.C.R. 562, referred to.
A
2.1. The court must, while giving directions, act with due ca.re and
caution. It must first ascertain the relevant facts, and must be cognizant
of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account or
such directions. A practical and pragmatic view has to be taken, inasm~ch
as every such direction not only tells upon the public exchequer but a~o B
has the effect or increasing the cadre strength of a particular service, class
or category. [852A,B]
2.2. In the instant case apart from the fact that the High Court •
not right in holding that the several 'conditions imposed by the two C
Governments in their respective or~ers relating to regularisation were.
arbitrary, not valid and justified, it acted rather hastily in directing
aolesome regularisation of all such persons who have put in one year's
s~
and that too unconditionally. Several problems will arise if such
directions become the norm. Therefore, there is need for fulled consider&"'., - -
tion ud due circumspection while giving such directions. [852C]
/
. D
3.1. 11te Government orders in question were issued by the Govena- .. ----
meat from time to time. These orders are not in the nature or a statate
wlaida is applicable to all existing and future situations. They wen issaed
to meet a given situation facing the Government at a given point of. time. E
la tM circumstances, therefore, there was nothing wrong in prescribing a
plll1kalar d8te by which the specified period of service (whether it is one
)al' or two years) ought to have been put in. [853G]
3.2. 11le first order dated 1st January, 1980 issued by one of. die
States says, a person must have completed two years of service as oa 311t F
Deciember, · 1979, i.e., the day previous to the issuance of the order. It
cannot be said that rmng of such a date is arbitrary and ~onaWe.
Silllilarly, the order dated 3rd January, 1983--f'axes. 15th September, 1982
as the relevant date. This notification/order does two things. Firstly, it
excludes Class III posts of clerks from the purview of the S.S.S.B. in case
of those who have completed a minimum of two years of service as on 15tla G
September, 1982, and secondly, it provides for their regularisation subject
to certain conditions. No particular attack was made as to this date in the
Hip Court. Consequently, the Government had no opportunity of ex·
p\aining as to why this particular date was faxed. Without giving such an
opportunity it cannot be '1eld that the fixation of the said date is arbitrary. ff
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992) 3 S.C.R.
A What is more relevant is that the High Court has not held that this
B
I
particular date is 'arbitrary. According to it, fIXation of any date what·
soever was arbitrary, because, in its opinion, the order must say that any
and every person who completes the prescribed period of service must be
regularised on completion of such period of service. The next order dated
24th Mat"ch, 1987 prescribes the date as 31.12.1986, i.e., the end of the
previous year. In the circumstances, there is no basis for holding .that
fixation of the date can be held to be arbitrary in the facts and circumstan·
ces of the case. [854A-D]
Dr. Sushma Shanna v. State of' Rajasthan, [1985) S.C. 1367 and Inder
C Pal Yadav & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [1985) 3 S.C.R. 837,
referred to.
3.3. The Government orders say that all those who had been spon·
sored by Employment Exchange or had been appointed after issuing a
j
public advertisement alone should ·be regularised. There is no on-
-"-
D reasonableness or invalidity in the same. It is a reasonable and wholesome
provision and a requirement designed to curb and discourage back door
entry and irregular appointments and ought not to have been invalidated.
Moreover, these are not cases where the writ petitioners were appointed
only after obtaining a non-availability certificate from the Employment
E
Exchange. [855E·F]
Union of India v. Hargopal, 1987 S.C. 1227, referred to. ·
3.4. The further. requirement prescribed ·in the orders, viz., that the
employees must have possessed the prescribed . q~alifications for. the post
F at the time of his app_ointment on ad hoc basis is equally a valid condition.
[855G·H]
3.5. The High Court was not justified in holding that inasmuch as
the two States were sister States and because prior to 1966 one State was
G a part of the other State, the rule relating to length of service requisite for
regularisation should be uniform in both the States. They are two different
States having their own Governments; merely because one Government
chooses to say that one year's temporary ad hoc service is enough for
..,.... -
regularisation it cannot be said that the other State must also prescribe
the very same period or that it cannot prescribe a longer or shorter
H period. The fact that there is a single High Court for both the States and
. '
STATE v. PJARA SINGH
8~1
-J...
the Union Territory of Chandigarh is no ground for saying that the orders A
issued by them should be uniform. [856A·C]
3.6. It is not necessary to alter or modify the directions of the ~ligh
Court, in so far as one of the States was concerned, that Class III and IV.
posts which were within the purview of the S.S.S.B. should equally be B
within the purview of regularisation ol'ders issued by iL If any of the .
petitioners have been excluded from consideration (for regularisation) on
--<
the basis that most of the Class III and IV posts were kept out of the
purview of the S.S.S.B. they may be considered and appropriate orders
passed. [856D·EJ
c
-
3.7. The High Court was also not justified in giving the direction
that all those ad hoc/temporary employees who had continued for more
than one year should be regularised. The direction bas been given without
/j_
reference to the existence of a vacancy. It, in effect, means that every ad
hoc/temporary employee who has been continued for one year should be D
. regularised even though (a) no vacancy is available for him -which means
creation of a vacancy (b) he was not sponsored by the Employment
Exchange nor was be appointed in pursuance of a notification calling for
applications which means be had entered by a back-door (c) be was not
eligible and/or qualified for the post at the time of his appointment and
E
'r
(d) his record of service since his appointment is not satisfactory.
Moreover, from the mere continuation of an ad hoc employee for one year,
it cannot be presumed that there is need for a regular post. Such a
presumption may be justified only when such continuance extends to
several years. Further, there can be no 'rule of thumb' in such matters.
Conditions and circumstances of one unit may not be the same as of the F
other. Just because in one case, a direction was given to regularise
1--.
employees who have put in one year's service as far as possible and subject
to fulfilling the qualifications, it cannot be held that in each and every case
such a direction must follow irrespective of and without taking into ac·
count the other relevant circumstances and considerations. The relief
must be moulded in each case having regard to all the relevant facts and G
circumstances of that case. It cannot be a mechanical act but a judicious
"'"{
one. Judged from this stand point, the directions under challenge must be
held to be totally untenable and unsustainable. [856F-H, 857AnC]
3.8. So far as the members of the work-charged establishment are H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1992) 3 S.C.R.
A concerned, though the work-charged employees are denied certain
benefits, they are industrial workers and are entitled to the benefits of the
provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights Oow
from. that special enactment under which even contracts of employment
are open to adjustment and modification. The work-charged employees,
B
therefore, are in a better ·position than temporary servants like_ the other
petitionP\"S who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any
kind of compensatory benefits. [857D, 858A-B]
Jaswant Singh v. Union of India, (1980) 1 S.C.R. 426, referred to.
C
3.9. In view of the orders issued on 24th March, 1987 and 6th April,
1990 by one of the States, the direction given by the High Court becomes
unnecessary. Though no orders have been issued in this regard by the
other State, a scheme of regularisation of these employees is stated to have
been prepared by that State in pursuance of the judgment under cbalD lenge. The said scheme is, however, not made conditional upon the result
/~-
of these appeals against the judgment. The scheme is a reasonably fair
E
F
one. I~ is hoped and trusted that irrespective of the result of these appeals,
the said scheme would be given effect to by the other State concerned.
[858C-D]
3.10. The High Court has directed that all those employees who fell
within the definition of 'workmen' contained in the Industrial Disputes Act
would also be entitled to regularisation on par with the work-charged
employees t. ·d that they should be regularised on completing five years of
service in one State and four years of service in the other State. This
direction is given in favour of those casual labour and daily wagers who
fall within the definition of workmen. Insofar as work-charged employees,
daily-wage workers and casual labourers who did not fall within the
definition of work-men are concerned, the High Court bas directed their
regularisation on completion of one year's service. This direction is as
untenable as in tbl. case of ad hoc/temporary employees. The direction
G regarding persons belonging to the above categories and who fall within
the definition of workmen, the terms in which the direction has been given
cannot be sustained. While it is true that persons belonging to these
categories conti• .ing over a number of years have a right to claim
regularisation and the authorities are under an obligation to consider
H their case for regularisation in a fair manner, keeping in view the prin-
-.\
STATE v. PIARA SINGH
833
_ _;.
ciples enunciated by this Court, the blanket direction given cannot .be A
sustained. However, in view of the orders of one of the State Governments
contained in the letter dated 6.4.1990 which provided for regularisation of
these persons on completion or ten years, no further directions are called
for at this stage. The other State Government, of course, has not issued
any such orders governing these categories. Accordingly, the State B
Government concerned should verify the vacancy position in the
categories or daily-wagers and casual labour and frame a scheme of
absorption in a fair and just manner providing for regularisation of these
persons, having regard to their length of service and other relevant condi·
tions. As many persons as possible shall be absorbed. The scheme should
be framed within six months. [858 F ·H, 859 A-CJ
c
-
4. Further orders had been issued by one of the State Governments,
after the filing of the writ petitions and during the pendency of the Special:
_;
Leave Petitions in this Court for reguiarisation of ad hoc/work-charged·.
employees. The other State Government has agreed by an affidavit before D
this Court, to adopt the same mutatis mutandis so far as Class III ·.
employees are concerned. It is hoped that many of the ei.Dployees would .
get regularised under the orders aforementioned issued by both the
Governments. [859D, 86SF, 867E)
5.1. The instant case is not a case where the Governments have E
failed to take any steps for regularisation of their ad hoc employees
working over the years. Every few years they have been issuing orders
providing for regularisation. In such a case, there is no occasion for the
court to issue any directions for regularising such employees more particularly when none of the conditions prescribed in the said orders can be F
said to be either unreasonable, arbitrary or discriminatory. The court
~
cannot obviously help those who cannot get regularised under these orders for their failure to satisfy the conditions prescribed therein. Issuing
general declaration of indulgence is no part of jurisdiction of this Court.
In case of such persons it is for the respective Governments to consider
G
the feasibility of giving them appropriate n:lief, particularly in cases where
persons have been continuing over a long number of years. and were
- --(
eligible and qualified on the date of their ad hoc appointment and further
whose record of service is satisfactory. [867 F-HJ
5.2. The normal rule, is regular recruitment through the prescribed H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
r1992) 3 S.C.R.
A
agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc
or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should
B
c
·always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regualrly
selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may
also compete along with others for such regular selection/appoin~ent. If
he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the
regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected
candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be
withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary
employee. Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be
replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced
only by a regularly selected employee.· This is necessary to avoid arbitrary
action on the part of the appointing authority. Thirdly, even where an ad
hoc or temporary employnient is necessitated on account of the exigencies
of administration, he should ordinarilly be drawn from the employment
exchange unless it· cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause
D must be stated on the file. If no candidat~ is available or is not sponsored
by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with
the requirments of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there
must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered
E
F
fairly. An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified
persons are not available throught the above processes. If for any reason
an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the
authorities must consider his case for regularisaction provide he is
eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and bis appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy
of the State. [868D-H, 869A-C]
5.3. The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme;
if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is alre.a.dy framed, the same
may be made consistent with the observations herein so as to reduce
G avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised
he should be placed immediately below the lasi regularly appointed
employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be. [869D] .
S.4 . So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are
H concerned,. the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as
-
r
--'{
STATE v. PIARA SINGH
835
early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualification, if any, A
prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual
labourer is continued for a fairly long spell - say two or three years ~ a
presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such
a situation it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine
the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought
to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person.
Security of tennre is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job.
In this behalf, this Court commends the orders of one of the State
Governments, contained in its letter dated 6.4.1990 both in relation to
work-charged employees as well as casual labour. [869 E-G]
S.S. The orders issued by both the Governments providing for'.
regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees who have put in two.
years/one year of service are quite generous and leave no room for any
legitimate grievance by any one. [869H]
B
c
~.6. These observations are not exhaustive nor can they be under- , D
stood as immutable. Each Government or authority has to devise its own
criteria or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant
circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the observations
made herein. [870 A-BJ
6.1. So far as the employees and workmen employed by Statutory/ E
Public Corporations are concerned, they have not issued any orders akin
to those issued by the two State Governments. Even so, it is but appropriate that they adopt as far as possible, keeping the exigencies and
requirements of their administration in view, the criteria and principles
underlying the orders issued by their Government in the matter of F
regularisation and pass appropriate orders. The orders contained in the
letter dated 6.4.1990, as supplemented by the orders in the Notification
dated 28.2.1991 issued by one of the States should be followed by the
Statutory/Public Corporations located in that State, whereas the
Statutory/Public Corporations located in the other State should follow the
criteria and principles stated in the affidavit of the Government of that G ·
· State filed before this Court. [870 C-D]
6.2. These directions would not, however, apply to these Statutory/
Public Corporations, functioning within these States as are under the
· control of the Government of India. These Corporations would evolve an H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992) 3 S.C.R.
A
appropriate policy of regularisation in the light of this judgment, if they /
~·
have not already evolved one, or make their existing policy consistent with
the judgment to avoid litigation. [870E]
7. As regards, equal pay for equal work, the judgment is singularly
devoid of discussion. The direction given by the High Court is totally
B
vague. It does not make it clear who will get what pay and on what basis.
Hence, this direction is set aside.
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Ad-
:_..-
c
D
ministration, (1992) 1J.T.394, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2979 of
1992 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and order dated 26.9.1988 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 72 of 1988.
H.L. Sibal, D.S. Tewatia, D.S. Mehra, M.S. Gujral, M.K. Ramamurthy, Hardev Singh, K.T.S. Tulsi, S.K. Bagga, S.P. Goyal, J.K. Sibal, H.S.
Mattewal, Adv. Genl. Punjab, Mrs. Jai Shree Ananda, D.A.G., Punjab,
Rajesh, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher, H.S. Munjral, G.K.
Bansal, H.S. Sohal, P.P. Singh, Ms. Mridula Ray, Kartar Singh, H.M. Singh,
E
S.C. Paul, R.K. Agnihotri, G.K. Chatrath, P.L. Syngal, N.A. Siddiqui, R.K.
Kapoor, Syed Ali Ahmed, K.C. Bajaj, Ms. Rupinder Sodhi Daulat, M.R.
Bidsar, K.K. Gupta, Syed Tanweer Ahmed, Mohan Pandey, Jitender Sharma, Naresh Kaushik, Mrs, Lalitha Kaushik, Shankar Divate, S.S. Khanduja,
Yash Pal Dhingra, Baldev Krishan Satija, Kirpal Singh, R.D. Upadhyay,
F
S.N. Bhardwaj, J.D. Jain, S.Bala Krishnan, Ms. Madhu Mool Chandani,
R.S. Sodhi, Prem Malhotra, Mrs. J.S. Wad, S.D. Sharma, B.S. Gupta, Ms.
Geetanjali Mohan, A.K. Mahajan, S.K. Gambhir, T.N. Singh, B.M. Sharma,
N.K. Aggarwal, S.M. Ashri, A.K. Goel, N.N. Sharma, M.K. Dua, E.C.
Agarwala, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, C.V. Subba Rao, K.R. Nagaraja, Manoj
G Swarup, P.K. Chakraborty, P.N. Puri, Ashok Grover, P. Gaur, Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthi, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, B.S. Malik, Pankaj Katra, A.M.
Khanwilkar, Dr. Meera Aggarwal, R.C. Misra, Gian Singh, S.C. Patel, M/s
Mitter & Mitter & Co., M/s Agarwal Mishra & Co. Mahabir Singh, R.C.
Kaushik, K.K. Mohan, Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, R.S. Suri, Sudershan Goel,
R.K. Chopra, Ravinder Chopra, Mrs. Sureshtha Bagga, Sanjay Bansal, Ms.
H Kanwaljit Kochhar, Ms. Indu Malhotra, R. C. Gubrele, Ms. Renu George,
1
--
STATE v. PIARA SINGH [REDDY, J.]
8;37
J
R.P. Sharma, D.K. Garg, Vishnu Mathur, Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Ms. KarnakA
shi S. Mehlwal, Indeevar Goodwill, Ranbir Singh, Ms. Savita Prabhakar,
Uijal Singh, Ms. Kusum Choudhary, J.L. Puri, T.S. Arora for the appearing
parties. Ramesh Chand and Kuldeep Singh appeared in person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. 1. This batch of Special Leave Petition5
·~
are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab an4
Haryana High Court in a batch of writ petitions, the first among them bein~
Writ Petition (C) No.72 of 1988 (Piara Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana
and Ors.). A large number of writ petitions arising from both the States of c
-
Punjab and Haryana were heard together and a common judgment,
delivered giving certain directions in the matter of regularisation of the,
adhoc/temporary employees, members of work charged establishments,.
J,
daily-wagers, casual labour and those engaged temporarily in temporary'
schemes. We have heard all the counsel appearing in this batch at quite· D
some length.
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. Over the last several years a large number of appointments were
E
y
made to Class III and IV services in the States of Punjab and Haryana on
ad hoc basis i.e., without reference to Public Service Commission or the
Subordinate Services Selection Board and without adhering to employment
exchange requirements. They were initially appointed for a period of six
months or so but were continued for years together under orders passed
from time to time. (In so far as the State of Haryana is concerned, most F
of the class III posts in the Education Department were kept out of the
-~~
purview of the S.S.S.B. during the period 1970 to 1987. For a period of 10
years, it is stated, there was no Board in existence in the State. Only in
March 1987, almost all the posts in Education Department and other
Departments were brought within the purview of the S.S.S.B.). As a result G
of the above policy, a large number of ad hoc employees came into
existence in both the States, who were continuing over several years without
-'"'
being regularised and were agitating for their regularisation. To meet the
situation, both the Governments issued orders from time to time for
regularisation of such employees subject to centain conditions. The orders
issued by the Government of Punjab are the following:
H
)-
_,.
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992) 3 S.C.R.
A
S.No.
Date of issue
Substance of the Order
~··
1
2
3
1.
3.3.1969
Regularisation of ad hoc employees oompleting
one year service on 28.2.1969.
2.
29.1.1973
Regularisation of ad hoc employees completing
B
one hear service on 1.1.1973.
3.
3.5.1977
Regularisation of ad hoc employees completing
one year service on 1.4.1977.
~
4.
20.10.1980
Regularisation of ad hoc employees. completing
c
one year service on U0.1980.
5.
20.10.1982
Regularisation of ad hoc employees completing
one year service on 26.10.1982
6.
29.3.1985
Regularisation of ad hoc employees completing
two years service on 1.4.1985
7.
8.8.1985
Modifying the order issued on 29.3.1985 and
"'--
D
directing that all Class III ad hoc employees
having one year service on 1.4.1985 may be
regularised.
8.
1.9.1986
Regularisation of Class III ad hoc employees
E
appointed after 1.4.1984.
The orders issued by the Government of Haryana are the following:
1"
S.No.
Date of issue
Substance of the Order
1
2
3
F
1
1.1.1980
Regularisation of all Class. III ad hoc
employees who have completi:d two years
service on 31.3.1979.
)r'
2.
3.1.1983
Regularisation of ad hoc Clerks in Class III
who have completed two years service on
G
15.9.1982.
3.
19.1.1984
Regularisation of Class III ad '1oc employees
who have completed two years of service on
15.9.1982. (The employees who were left out
·rin the orders dt. 3.1.1983 were brought within
H
the purview of this order.)
--
STATE v. PIARA SINGH [REDDY, J.]
839
4.
15.2.1987
Regularisation of all Class III ad hoc A
employees other than teachers working
against posts which have been taken out of
the purview of the S.S.S.B. and who 1'.ave
completed two years service on 1.11.1986~
In pursuance of the above orders a number of persons who satisfied
the conditions prescribed in each of those orders were regularised 'but
many could not be. Their services could not be regularised for the rea~on
that they did not satisfy one or the other of the conditions prescribed in
the said orders. They were, however, allowed to continue in service: It is
B
this category of people. who approached the High Court· of Punjab a~d C
Haryana praying for issuance of Writ, Order of Direction for regularisation
of their service.
3. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the conditions
prpscribed by the aforesaid orders which were not satisfied by the writ
p6titioners and on account of which they were not regularised. The order D
of the Government of Haryana dated 1st January, 1980 prescribed the
following conditions for regularisation:
(1) He must have put in a minimum service of two years on
31.12.1979.
E
(2) He must have been recruited through the Employment Exchange. '
(3) The service and conduct of such emplyee should be of an overall '
good category.
( 4) He must have possessed the prescribed qualifications for the post
at the time of his appointment on ad hoc basis.
In the Order dated 3rd January 1983, a further condition, besides the
aforesaid conditions.· was imposed viz .. that the employee must bel~ng to
. the category for which the post stands reserved.
Similarly in the Order dated 29th March, 1985 issued in the case of
Goverilm.ent of Punjab (issued by the President of India) the conditions
prescribed.were the following:
F
G
(1).He must have completed a niinimum of two years service on 1st fl
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
£1992] 3 S.C.R.
A April, 1985.
~
(2) He must have fulfilled the conditions for eligibility (a~demic
qualifications, experience and age) at the time of his first adhoc/tentpnrary
appointment.
B
(3) He must have been recruited through the Employment Exchange
or by open advertisement.
( 4) His record of service has been satisfactory.
}-
c
(5) He is found medically fit for entering the Government service;
his character and antecedent have been duly verified and found suitable
fQr Government service.
( 6) A regular post/vacancy is available for regularisation.
,L_
D
(7) He has been found fit for regularisation by the Departmental
Selection Committee.
(8) Among the persons regularised, interse seniority would be observed. All these persons would be placed junior to those working on
E regular basis.
1
These are the conditions common to all the orders issued from time
to time by the Governments of Punjab and Haryana. Only those ad hoc/ternporary employees who could not be regularised for want of satisfy,ing one or
,,,....,..
the other of the conditions prescribed in the respective orders that had
F
approached the High Court by way of Writ Petitions. They contended that
the conditions prescribed in the said orders were arbitrary, discriminatory
)r
and unrelated to the object. It -is this contention which was . examined at
some length and accepted by the high Court.
G
4. Besides the ad hoc/temporary employees, certain other categories
of persons also approached the High Court whose cases too have been
dealt with in the judgment under appeal. They are work-charged employees
daily~wagers, casual labour and those employed rin temp0rary/time-bound
r -
projects. They too wanted to be regularised. A plea of equal pay for equal
work was also advanced by certain petitioners. These pleas too were
H considered and upheld.
-
STATE v. PIARA SINGH [REDDY, J.]
841
5. The reasons for which the High Court held the conditions A
prescribed in the orders of regularisation aforementioned, as bad are to
the following effect:
(a). VALIDITY OF FIXING A PARTICULAR DATE BY WHICH
THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF SERVICE SHOULD HA VE BEEN COMPLETED.
The High Court held, "th~re is no magic in fixing a date by which an
employee was to complete the prescribed tenure of service for regularisation .......... fixing of a date has no reasonable basis or intelligible different.a
B
for the object to achieve ........ following that view (the view taken by this C
Court in lnder Pal Yadav, (1985] 3 S.C.R. 837) we hold that the dates fixed
for the policies of regularisation of the two Governments are di~
criminatory ...... we hold that the various dates fixed from time to time in
their regularisation policies are hit by Articles 14 and '16 of the Constitutiol)
of India."
(b) VALIDITY OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SPONSORED BY EMPLOYMENT EX-.
CHANGE.
D
The High Court held that this Court has, in the Union of India v ..
Hargopal
(1987 S.C. 1227), held that "if at a given moment suitable E
candidates amongst candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges
are not available or no candidate has been sponsored by the Employment
Exchange and recruitment is made on ad hoc basis from the sources other
than employment exchange, it cannot be said in regularisation policy that
such candidates would not -be entitled to be regularised. The basic policy ' F
decision is that ad hoc employees who have worked for quite some time
- and_ .have gained experience should be regularised and in case they are
shunted out, hardship wouid be caused in numerous ways ........ we find no
justification in the policy of regularisation that the eandidates sponsored
through the Employment Exchanges alone would be entitled to regularisa- G
tion." No finding was, however, recorded that the petitioners or any of them
were appointed without reference to the Employment Exchange only after
the Employment Exchange intimated the concerned authority that no
suitable candidate is available with it.
(c) VALIDITY OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CON- ff ·-
)-
.,/
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1"992] 3 S.C.R.
A
CERNED POSTS SHOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
~
S.S.S.B.
The High Court held that inasmuch as most of the Class III and Class
IV posts were kept out of the purview of the S.S.S.B. in the State of
B
Haryana during the period 1970 to March, 1987 and also because for a
period of ten years there was no S.S.S.B. in existence in this State, imposition of this condition by the Government of Haryana is unreasonable and
arbitrary.
r ,.
6. Having expressed the opinions above-mentioned, the High Court
c referred to certain decisions of this court and of its own, and expressed the
view that continuing employees on adhoc basis for more than one year
-
without regularising them is arbitrary and unreasonable. This principle was
also held applicable to other categories of employees like daily wagers,
~
casual labour and others, who were ---'"workmen" as defined in the Industriaf Disputes Act. The court further opined that inasmuch as the State
,~
D of Haryana was prescribing one year's service for regularisation (in its
orders) the Punjab Government cannot prescribe two years qualifying
service. Thus, one year service was declared as the norm for all such
employees to become entitled to regularisation.
E
7. The directions ultimately granted by the High Court while allowing
the batch of writ pettitions are to the following effect:
'1'
(1) The State Government should avoid making any ad hoc
appomtments. If they do so, it shall be for initial period of six
~
months and not be extended beyond other six months. If their
F
term is .extended beyond one year, to such employees the
benefits arising from· our following conclusions will apply, ac-
)rcording to the group in which they fall.
(2) The Punjab State employees covered by Group No. 1 would
G
be considered as regular members of the service on eompletion
of more than one year after ignoring notional and permissible
breaks in service, as noticed by the Supreme Court in various
judgments and also by our Full Banch in Jagdish Lal's case
'y -
(supra). However, the concerned departments would pass orI
dets for their regularisation and they would be entitled to . all
H
benefits of service from the date of their. initial appointments.
-\
STATE v. PIARA SINGH [REDDY, J.)
843
As regards Haryana employees covered by Group No. l on A
completion of cwo years of service they would be considered
as regular members of service after ignoring their notional and
permissible breaks as noticed by the Supreme Court in various
judgments and also by our Full Bench ~ Jagdish Lat's case
(supra), and the concerned departments would pass orders for B
their regularisation.