Can govt take back permanent job after 3 years? Punjab and Haryana High Court flays ‘arbitrary’ order against appointee

Justice Sandeep Moudgil was hearing the plea of a mali-cum-chowkidar.

The order added that the Constitution is not a parchment of power but a living promise of justice.

Regularised then de-regularised

• The petitioner, Shri Pal Singh, was appointed as a mali-cum-chowkidar in March 1991 through the Employment Exchange in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) in Sadhaura, Haryana.
• In 1996, pursuant to a state policy, his services were regularised, effective from February 1, 1996.
• However, in August 1999, the joint secretary to the government of Haryana issued an order de-regularising Singh’s services.
• The state’s primary defense was that the petitioner was appointed by a panchayat samiti—a local body—and therefore did not qualify as a “government employee.”

‘Delay form of denial’

• Justice, in a constitutional democracy, is not served by postponement.
• When wages and service benefits are unlawfully withheld, delay itself becomes a form of denial.
• Once the state itself regularised the petitioner by applying the policy in 1996 and extended all consequential service benefits between 1996 and 1999, it is impermissible for the state to subsequently withdraw the regularisation on the plea of lack of authority in the initial appointment.
• For over three years after regularisation, the petitioner was treated as a regular employee in all respects.
• Such prolonged acquiescence by the state creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the petitioner that his service status would not be disturbed.
• Administrative fairness does not permit the state to undo a settled position after such a lapse of time.
• Singling out the petitioner for de-regularisation in 1999, while extending protection or continued service to others similarly placed, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution of India.
• The Panchayat Samiti, having been held to be an instrumentality of the state under Article 12 (“the State” includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities) of the Constitution, the petitioner was entitled to the full protection of Articles 14 and 16.
• The selective de-regularisation of the petitioner strikes at the root of equality before law and cannot be sustained.
• The state, as a model employer, must remember that those who serve it at the lowest rungs of administration are entitled not merely to wages, but to dignity secured by the Constitution.