Punjab and Haryana HC slams exploitative contract hiring by govts
The court was hearing a petition regarding regularisation of services which was pending since 2017, where eight junior engineers (JEs) appointed by the Chandigarh municipal corporation between 2007-10 after a due process were ignored for regularisation of services.
The HC bench of justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the decision by the Supreme Court in the Uma Devi case cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking a legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularisation.
In 2006, the Supreme Court constitution bench had held that regularisation of contractual or part-time employees would amount to legalisation of backdoor entrants.
'The states/UT have made hay from the findings of the constitution bench. They have started making appointment on contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every department, including education, which is a character and nation building department. Many teachers appointed on contract basis are getting minuscule pay in comparison to regularly appointed peons. The exchequer is siphoned off for subsidies instead of appointing regular employees and paying regular pay scale,' the bench remarked while ordering regularisation of services of the MC junior engineers within six weeks.
The court found that petitioners are not back-door entrants. The MC passed a resolution in 2012 that their services should be regularised, but they were not considered. The court also found that Group-D employees/daily wagers were appointed and their services were regularised, and now getting salary more than JEs.
The court further said that the Supreme Court in 2006, in case of exigencies, had permitted to make appointment on contract basis, and did not permit states and its agencies to make it a routine practice.
'The court had emphasised to make appointments in public employment after following procedure prescribed for regular recruitment and in accordance with mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Intention and imprimatur of the court was to inhibit and discourage back-door entry. The court did not permit to make contractual recruitment for infinity and pay minimum of pay scale,' the court remarked.
The court observed that the administration did not make regular appointments in the teeth of Supreme Court judgments and on the other hand despite following due appointment procedure has kept the petitioners contractual for more than 15 years.
'..the government being a model employer neither can exploit its citizen nor take advantage of mass unemployment. It is expected to make recruitment in accordance with prescribed procedure and on permanent basis. It cannot keep hanging the sword of termination,' the court added, ordering that if no order of regularisation is passed within six weeks, they shall be deemed to be regularised and would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of six weeks period.
It further underlined that high courts should not ordinarily direct absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
However, a total embargo on such casual or temporary employment is not possible, given the exigencies of administration, and if imposed, would only mean that some people who at least get employment temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be getting even that when securing it brings at least some succour to them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
State amended nine varsities' laws to bypass binding UGC regulations: T.N. Governor
The Tamil Nadu Governor and the University Grants Commission (UGC) found themselves in the Supreme Court in agreement with a petitioner who had challenged the State government's authority to amend nine Acts, which took away the Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in State universities. The petitioner in question, advocate K. Venkatachalapathy, had previously convinced the Madras High Court on May 21 to pass an interim order staying the amended Acts which clothed the State government, and not the Governor, with the power to appoint the VCs. The State, represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, had responded to the interim order by approaching the Supreme Court. The apex court had issued notice to Mr. Venkatachalapathy; the Union government; the UGC; the Tamil Nadu Governor; and the Human Resources and Development Ministry. In a counter-affidavit, the Governor replied that the amendments made by the State government were deliberately meant to 'bypass' binding UGC Regulations. 'The legal framework mandates the process be in conformity with binding UGC Regulations, which the State government sought to bypass through the amendment Acts. The amendments to the university Acts cannot override binding constitutional norms or Central legislation. The allegations of delay in appointing the Vice-Chancellors are a result of States' administrative decisions,' the Governor responded. Similarly, the UGC also blamed the State of Tamil Nadu for violating the procedure for appointment of VCs. The State, it argued, by exercising its legislative competence, bestowed the powers of appointment of Vice-Chancellor upon the government, thereby violating the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor prescribed under Clause 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018. 'The powers of the UGC, as regards maintenance of standards of higher education, are very broad in nature and are applicable equally to all universities. The petitioner's [State government] oblique attempt to circumscribe the powers of the UGC is misconceived and is clearly an afterthought and is misplaced,' the UGC stated. The State has argued that the High Court ordered a stay despite the Supreme Court, in an April 8 judgment, declaring that the Bills were granted 'deemed assent' by the Governor. The State government had notified the Acts following the judgment. It contended there was a strong presumption of constitutionality against laws passed by the legislature. The State said its appeal had raised questions of law with wide ramifications pertaining to the issue of federalism and State autonomy to establish, regulate and administer State universities under Entry 32 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution along with the issues pertaining to judicial impropriety and discipline in keeping a hands-off approach.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Delhi stray dogs issue: Do not ascribe to 'virtue signalling' over animal care, says SC; read full order
Photo/Agencies NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has uploaded the full order in suo motu case on the stray dog issue, in which a two-judge bench on Monday, August 11, directed that stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be relocated to shelters. In the judgment, uploaded on the apex court's website on Wednesday, the Court has included directions to ensure that the dogs are not ill-treated in shelter homes while saying that the judiciary bears the sole responsibility to "possess the courage and strength" to remind people of truths that they may not prefer to hear. Meanwhile, in a related development, a new three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria will hear the matter on Thursday. The directions to permanently relocate all strays from streets to shelters "at the earliest" were passed by a bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on August 11. The bench passed a slew of directions while hearing a suo-motu case initiated on July 28 over stray-dog bites leading to rabies, particularly among children, in the national capital. Here are top observations of Supreme Court order "The judiciary must not assume or take on the colouration of the prevailing popular sentiments of the time, for its role is not to echo the passions of the moment but to uphold the enduring principles of justice, conscience and equity," the order said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play this game for 1 minute and see why everyone is addicted. Undo "As the sentinel on the qui vive, a guardian of rights, the judiciary bears the solemn responsibility to possess the courage and the strength to remind the people of truths that they may not like or prefer not to hear," it added. The bench acknowledged the 'genuine love and care' many people have for stray dogs and encouraged them to 'come forward and become a part of this exercise,' taking responsibility for the care and upkeep of the animals in shelters or pounds. "In light of the concerns of the interveners, we urge all to adopt and give dogs a shelter in their homes. However, we do not ascribe to the virtue signalling of all those who share love and concern for the animals," the order noted. The court said it is mindful of and sensitive to the concept of coexistence, but stressed that coexistence should not mean one life existing at the cost of another. "As a court, our heart pains equally for everyone. We condemn those who, beneath the cloak of 'love and care' for the voiceless, pursue the warmth of self-congratulation. The directions given by us, as a court which functions for the welfare of the people, are both in the interest of humans as well as dogs. This is not personal," it added. "The exercise that we propose to undertake is not to be performed in a casual manner. The burning issue that we have embarked upon is not driven by a momentary impulse," the bench said. "On the contrary, it is only after the deepest of deliberations, and having reached the firm conclusion about the systematic failure of the concerned authorities over the past two decades to address an issue that strikes at the heart of public safety that we have decided to take the matter in our hands," it added. Noting the rising incidents of dog bites, the bench said this is not the time for resistance or hesitation stemming from complacency. It added that streets should not be places of vulnerability. "Among a bundle of concerns, we are at pains to take cognisance of the experiences of visually-impaired persons, young children, elderly persons, people from a humble background who are not able to afford even a day's meal, let alone the medical expenses. The visually-impaired persons are at the highest risk of dog bites as their primary support, their canes, are seen as threats by the dogs," it said. The bench also said there is no way one can identify or classify between a rabies-carrying dog and other dogs. "It is often said that 'no person is above the law'. However, of equal significance is the flip side of that maxim -- 'no person is below the law' either," it said.
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
When Rahul Gandhi targets pillars of Indian democracy, sweets are distributed in Pak: MP CM
Madhya Pradesh chief minister Mohan Yadav INDORE: Madhya Pradesh chief minister Mohan Yadav on Wednesday accused opposition leader Rahul Gandhi of doing politics against national interests, saying when he makes comments against the pillars of democracy, sweets are distributed in Pakistan. He said armed forces showed great valour and courage against terrorists during Operation Sindoor , carried out under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi . "On one hand, there is an atmosphere of patriotism, while on the other hand, Rahul Gandhi and his party are not refraining from vote bank politics. He (Gandhi) makes derogatory comments about the pillars of democracy like the Supreme Court , the Election Commission and the armed forces. When Rahul Gandhi makes such comments, sweets are distributed in neighbouring Pakistan," the CM told reporters in Indore. Yadav said Gandhi should refrain from doing politics against national interests and join campaigns like 'Tiranga Yatra' in view of the Independence Day . On Gandhi's allegation of 'vote theft', the chief minister said he should raise his objection by submitting an affidavit to the Election Commission, but instead, he is creating a ruckus on the road. Yadav said Gandhi had similarly tried to create an atmosphere of confusion among the public a few years ago by using the slogan 'Chowkidar Chor Hai', but later he had to apologise in the Supreme Court. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This is What Your Fingers Say About Your Personality Tips and Tricks Undo Gandhi had unconditionally apologised to the Supreme Court for wrongfully attributing the phrase 'chowkidar chor hai' to the court. "I would like to tell Gandhi that just waving the book of the Constitution won't work. They will also have to behave according to the basic spirit of the Constitution," Yadav said and termed Rahul Gandhi as a "threat" to democracy. Earlier, the chief minister participated in the 'Tiranga Yatra' in Indore. People from different walks of life participated, holding the national flag in their hands, amid patriotic slogans.
