LexSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.ETC. versus PIARA SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 discriminatory-
D 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 Subor-
dinate 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 appel-
lant 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 ar-
bitrary,. 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 spon-
sored 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 estab-
F
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 REPORTSExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.