HC quashes Hooda regime’s 4 job regularisation policies

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Ha ryana high court on Thursday set aside the previous Haryana government’s policies to regularise services of contractual employees. The policies were framed by the Bhupinder Singh Hooda-led Congress government to regularise more than 20,000 employees ahead of the state assembly elections in 2014.

The HC has given six months to the government to make regular appointments against these posts and to enable the affected employees to find jobs .“Under no circumstances these employees will continue after six months,” reads the HC order. It also ordered that the affected employees be given relaxation in age for the period they worked with the state in the next selection process but only once.

“The exercise for framing the aforesaid four policies in June and July 2014 was to please voters as the assembly elections were due in October. For gaining personal benefits, the bosses were not concerned about any order of the court, hence they dared to violate the same ,” th eH C bench of justice Rajesh Bindal and justice A nil K she tar pal observed quashing all four policies.

Wide the first policy, group ‘B’ employees who had worked for not less than three years were regularised on May 28, 2014. In the second policy on June 18,2014, group‘ C’ and group‘ D’ employees with minimum of three years service were regularised. The government came out with third policy on July 7, 2014, regularising group ‘B’ employees with 10 years of service up to December 31,2018. Same was done in fourth policy wide which group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees completing 10 years of service on December 31, 2018, were regularised.

These policies were challenged in August 2014 by many job aspirants alleging that the government was resorting to backdoor appointments. The HC in 2016 made it clear that the appointments done by the previous government would be subject to the final outcome of these petitions.

The Man oh ar L al K hat tar gov- ernment had defended these appointments in the court.

The H Cob served that the constitutional scheme and the judgment of the Supreme Court were brushed aside for political gains even as the apex court had deprecated such an exercise by the state in 2011.

“The conduct of the state is evident from the clauses added in various policies,” the court said, referring to such policies of 1999, 2003, 2006 and 2007 and 2011 in which successive governments had said that the exercise was “one time measure”. A clause in 2003 policy states that if any such appointment is made, the officers responsible will be liable for disciplinary action. But no action has been taken so far against anyone .“How the term‘ one time measure’ is understood by the government is a mystery as this is being used ever since the policies are being framed but every time the state comes out with a new policy again. The illegality is continuing in perpetuity,” the HC observed.

The court also deprecated the role of senior officials and said theyare expected to oppose such a move instead of being a party to it “to please their political bosses”.

COURT GIVES GOVT SIX MONTHS TO MAKE FRESH APPOINTMENTS; 20,000 EMPLOYEES WERE REGULARISED AHEAD OF 2014 ASSEMBLY POLLS

CHANDIGARH : The writing was on the wall. Thursday’s decision of the Punjab and Haryana high court to set aside theregu larisation of contractual Haryana government employees did not come as a surprise.

Staring at an electoral defeat after a nine-year run, theBhu pinder Singh Hood a-led Congress government had in May 2014 blatantly ignored the advice of its law secretary and overlooked all legal aspects to toss yet another poll-centric offering of regular isin gt he services of over 20,000 contractual and ad hoc employees

The move was clearly aimed at appeasing the employees, a major vote bank, ahead of the October 2014 assembly polls.

The council of ministers completely disregarded the settled legal position on the matter and even closed its eyes to the advice of law department while approving amendments int heregu larisat ion policy for group B, Can dD employees (Classes 2, 3 and 4). Hindustan Times had reported the flawed decision on May 30, 2014

THEDEFECT

The Hooda cabinet’s decision to regularise the services of ad hoc Group B employees, whose services could not regular is ed under a 1996 policy, was defective as the state government had withdrawn this policy in 1997 in view of the Supreme Court orders.

Strangely, no legal opinion was sought by the state government on this aspect. Questions were raised as to how any employment can be legitimised under a policy which was withdrawn 17 years ago.

The apex court had in October 1997(PRavindranv/sUTofPondicherry’ case) had deprecated the practice of regularisation of services of ad hoc employees as a substitute for the appointees recommended by the public service commission.

LAWDEPARTMENT’S ADVICEIGNORED

The Hooda Cabinet had also ignored the advice of the law department while deciding the regularisation of leftover Group Can dD employees working on ad hoc basis or on contract, who were once eligible under the regularisation policies of June 1997, November 1999, October 2003 and February 2004, but could not be regularised due to administrative reasons.

The law secretary, in his advice on a query whether these leftover employees once eligible under the policies of 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2004 can be regularized, had said: “The policies as mentioned in this query having been rescinded vide notification of April 13, 2007, and the same having been done in view of the Supreme Court orders in the ‘State of Karnataka v/s Uma De vi’ case, this query is answered in the negative.”

The apex court in the Uma Devi case had delivered a landmark judgment on the issue of regularisation of services of temporary, ad hoc, daily-wage and contract employees.

It heldthat merely becausean employee continued under the cover of a court order, under litigious employment or continued beyond the term of his appointment by the state or its instrumentalities, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in service merely on the strength of such continuance if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.

CABINET IGNORED STATE LAW SECRETARY’S ADVICE, OVERLOOKED ALL LEGAL ASPECTS