Surinder Singh And Others vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation And Another

Harpreeet Singh Brar, J

CM-14838-2025 in CWP-11133-2019

The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for permission to place on record the additional affidavit of thhe petitioner.

Heard.

In view of the grounds takenn in the application, the presennt application is allowed and the additional afffidavit is ordered to be taken on record. Registry is directed to place the same at appropriate place.

Main

This order of mine shall dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-11133-2019.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer foor issuance of a writ in the naturre of certiorari for quashing the order dateed 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-25). Further for issuance of a writ in the natture of mandamus directing thhe respondentss to regularize the services of petitioner especially in view of Pepsu Roaad Transport Corporation (Conditions of appointment and Regulationss), 1981 and in view of law laid down in CWP-8240-20088, Dalbir Singh Vs. PRTC and others decidded on 22.03.2010 (Annexure P-22) along with Civil Appeal No.6779 of 20009, UT Chandigarh and otherrs Versus Sammpat and others decided on 03.04.2014 (Annexure P-23) and also in view of policies/instructions dated 04.03.1999, 23.01.20011, 15.12.2006 ((Annexure P-4 to P-6 & P-16) respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends thaat petitioner was initially appointed as Waterman on part time basis in Pepsu Road Transsport Corporation, Barnala Depot on 01.05.1982. He had been continuously performing duties for 8 hours since the year 1982. Further, he refers to office order dated 02.12.2004 (Annexure P-2) vide which, thhe petitioner, other daily wagers and part tiime workers of the respondent-Corporationn were granted minimum paay scale along with dearnesss allowance w.e.f. 01.11.2004, as such, this further fortifies the claim of thhe petitioner for regularization. Petitioner was entitled to be regularized in terms of the regularization policy/instructions dated 04.03.1999 (Annexurre P-4), as the petitioner has rendered continuoous service of 10 years and fulfils the eligibiliity criteria laid down in the policy. Further the policy of 1999 provided ann explicit stipulation for dispensing with the services of such employees. He further placed reliance upon policy/instructions dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-5) issued by Government of Punjab, which provides for regularization on completion of 3 years of service and it waas further provvided that those daily wagers andd others category of workers who had complete three years of service were to be regularization and in case thhe services of such employees is not required, their services may be terminated by followinng the due process of law. The services of the petitioner was noot dispensed with in terms of the policy (Annexure P-5) which clearly fortifiees his case, as he has rendered continuous servvice which is perennial in nature.

The claim of the petitioner is also required to be considered foor regularization in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 2006(3) SLR 1, as petitioner haas rendered more than 10 years of service. After passing of the judgment in Uma Devi another instructions dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) waas passed, pursuant to which a large number of employees of the Corporation stand regularized. Further an identical isssue in terms of the applicable regularization policy was raised before this Court in CWP-1933-20144, Kanta Rani Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 28.10.20144, wherein thiis Court has ordered the servicees of the petitioner therein to be regularized in terms of instructions/policy of 1999 and 2001.

Learned counsel placed furthher reliance upon the judgmennt rendered byy the Division Bench of this Court in LPA Nos. 95 of 2019 and other conneected matters (O&M) Punjab Sttate Power Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Surinder Singh and otheers, decided on 23.12.2022 and submits that even the part-time employees working for few hours in a day have been regularized in terms of policy of 1999 and the respondent-Corporationn has not controverted the fact thhat in any manner they have filled 25% vacancies in terms of policy of 1999. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh Versus State of Punjjab and others, 2013(14) SCC 65 has authoritatively held that employer hass not carried out the exercise in compliance of the directions in Uma Devvi (supra) and the claim of such employees for regularization cannot be denied. Further the petitioner fulfills the eligibility set out in every policy, however, in spite of serving thhe respondent-Corporation since 1982, the services of petitioner was noot regularized. Similarly situated employees of the petitioners have approached this Court in CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, deccided on 03.09.2025 and CWPP- 1968-2012, Sant Ram and others Versuus State of Punjab and others, decided on 02.09.2025. This Court has allowed their writ petitions by holding that in the absence of sanctioned poosts it cannot be used as a pretexxt to deny thee regularization by relying upoon the judgment of Two Judgge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggoo Vs. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 and ordered the regularization of simmilarly situated employees of thhe petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the policy of 1999 and 2001 is totally misplaced in the presennt case, as the petitioner had retired on 31.10.2019 and during his servicce period, he never sought his regularization. However, could not controvert the fact that petitioner has rendered continuous service, perennial in naturre and had alrready been granted the minimuum pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.20044. Further, the counsel could not controveert the fact that petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing CWWP-2984-2003 and in compliancce thereof speaking order was passed to thee effect that the services of thhe petitioner shall also be regularized as and when vacancies arises in terms of policy datedd 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-12).

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that thhe stand taken by the respondent-Corporationn is contrary to the records as is discernible from Annexure P-7, vide which it is clearly indicating the namees of employees who have been appointed in the year 1984 onwards have been regularized,, whereas petitioner-Sh. Rajindeer Parshad has joined the servicce on 01.05.19982 and petitioner-Sh. Surinder Singh in the year 1979 i.e. much prior to 19884, have not been regularized.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thhe record with their able assistance.

It transpires that the petitioner No.1 joined service in 1979 and petitioner No.2 joined on 01.05.1982 and have rendered continuous, perennial service for decades following which Petitioner No.2 retired on 31.10.2019 while the petitioner 1 is still in service.

A Two Judge bench of the Apex Court in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P 2025 INSC 998 speaking thrrough Justice Vikram Nath madde the followinng observations,

"17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union annd the State governments) is noot a mere market participant but a coonstitutional employer. It cannoot balannce budgets on the backs of thoose who perform the most basiic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in itts sancttioned strength and engagemment practices. The long-termm extraction of regular labour undder temporary labels corrodees confiidence in public administration and ends the promise of equaal protection. Financial stringency ceertainly has a place in publiic policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and thhe duty to organise work on lawful lines.

Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrivees where administration is opaque. Thhe State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishmeent registers, muster rolls and outsoourcing arrangements, and theey must explain, with evidencee, why they prefer precarious engagemment over sanctioned posts wherre the work is perennial. If "constrainnt" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were connsidered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently ,annd how the chosen course alignns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Coonstitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentalityy. It is a constitutional discipline thaat should inform every decision affectting those who keep public officees running."

(emphasis addedd)

The State, as a model employeer, cannot be permitted to exploit employees by keeping them in temporary positions for decades and then deny them regularization. This amounts to a blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of thhe Constitution. The petitioner's duration of work showcases thaat the require ment was continuous and perennnial in nature. State as a modeel employer shhould be welfare oriented and not have exploited the petitionerrs by extractinng duties perennial in nature withhout providing them with apt and suitable apppointments.

Reliance in this regard has been aptly placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on judgements off this court in CWP-12211-20211, Hans Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, decided on 03.09.2025 and CWP-1968-2012, Sant Ram and otherrs Versus Statte of Punjab and others, decidedd on 02.09.2025.

In view of the above discusssion the Claim of petitioners is squarely covered by afore-cited judgmments. The both petitions arre accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure that thhe petitioners are regularised within six weeeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the competeent authorities. If not regularised the petitioners shall be deemed to be regulaarised on the expiry of six weeks. Further, eveen if the petitioners are retired thhey cannot be denied the benefits of regularisation. The petitioners shall be enntitled to counting of past servicce and other benefits as per judgments of this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWWP No.2371 of 2010 and Statee of Haryana and others v. Jaai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.

Pending miscellaneous applicaation(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.