Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhoop Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 20 April, 2021CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 20, 2021
Bhoop Singh (since deceased) through his LR
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
ARUN MONGA, J.
CM-11836-CWP-2018:
For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed.
Consequently, Annexures P-21 to P-23 are taken on record.
CM-18986-CWP-2019:
Instant application is to bring on record Legal
Representative/widow of the petitioner-Bhoop Singh who died during
pendency of writ proceedings on 23.10.2018. For the reasons stated therein,
application is allowed. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CWP-19793-2017:
1. Indulgence sought from this court for mitigation of petitioner’s
grievance, appointed as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 03.02.1988 on daily wages,
inter alia, is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing regularization of his
services w.e.f. 31.01.1996, by implementing policy instructions dated
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:21 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 2
07.03.1996 and 18.03.1996 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), along with all
consequential benefits arising there from.
2. Petitioner, unfortunately died on 23.10.2018 during pendency of
instant petition, before he could get to know the final fate thereof. Just before
his death, he did have a sigh of relief though, when on 04.10.2018 claim for
regularization of his services was allowed by a common judgment in the first
round of same very writ proceedings. Said common judgment dated 04.10.2018
was rendered by a co-ordinate bench in bunch of petitions qua a set of
employees seeking regularization. However, in an intra court appeal, appellate
bench remanded the entire bunch, to be decided afresh, after segregating the
petitions individually, leading thus to the second foray herein. Petitioner’s
widow-legal representative is currently pursuing the cause.
3. Brief factual narrative first, shorn of unnecessary details.
Petitioner since the day of his appointment i.e. 03.02.1988, worked on daily
wages as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar in the Public Health Department. However,
due to unauthorized absence from work, allegedly on account of illness, his
services were brought to an end on or about 29.05.1993, when he was not
permitted to resume work on reporting back. Subsequently, vide a Labor Court
award dated 10.04.2000 (Annexure P-1), it was ordered that he be reinstated
with continuity of service and full back wages. The aforesaid award was
challenged through CWP No. 15175 of 2000, which was dismissed vide Single
Bench judgment dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P-2), albeit with the modification
that back wages of petitioner were restricted to 50%. Single Bench judgment
was further challenged in LPA No. 1312 of 2010, which too was dismissed.
Notwithstanding, the petitioner was not allowed to join. Compelled, he filed a
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 3
contempt petition before this court. It was only thereafter, he was allowed to
rejoin duty on 01.02.2011, that too on muster roll basis. He was also paid 50%
back wages i.e. a sum of Rs. 99,278/-.
4. Petitioner has pleaded that his services ought to have been
regularized by the respondents in terms of policy instructions dated 07.03.1996
(Annexure P-4) read with instructions dated 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-5).
5. Instructions dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-4) issued by the State,
qua regularization of services of work charged/casual/daily rated employees,
contemplate that those who had completed five years services as on 31st
January, 1996 and were in service as on that date, were to be regularized.
Provided, in the preceding years, they had worked for a minimum period of 240
days in each year and the break in service in any year was not more than one
month at a time.
6. Aforementioned instructions dated 07.03.1996 were later
modified further vide Annexure P-5, dated 18.03.1996. Scope of regularization
was enlarged to larger section of employees. It was instead decided that
whoever had completed three years of service as on 31.01.1996 and fulfilled
the conditions laid down in the instructions dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-4),
shall be regularized.
7. To seek benefit of the aforesaid twin-set policy instructions,
petitioner relied on his admitted service record (as deposed by SDO before the
Tribunal) to claim that he had worked for 6 continuous years, till his services
were initially discontinued, as detailed hereunder:-
Year No. of days worked
1998 169
1989 356
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 4
1990 303
1991 296
1992 242
1993 (worked upto 29.05.93) 181 (sic)
As already stated, on 10.04.2000 (Annexure P-1), it was ordered
that he be reinstated with continuity of service.
8. Despite being backed up as above, his repeated requests seeking
regularization did not yield any result. He then served a legal notice dated
07.03.2017 (Annexure P-13) but to no avail. Hence, the instant petition.
9. When this petition came up for consideration on 16.04.2018,
speaking for this court, my learned Brother Arun Palli, J. observed as under :
“Contends that the petitioner was employed as Mali-cum-
Chowkidar on 03.02.1988. But his services were brought to an
end on 29.05.1993. Vide award, dated 10.04.2000, the Labour
Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and full
back wages. However, in a writ petition preferred by the State, this
Court, vide order and judgment, dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P-
2), modified the award, and the back wages awarded to the
petitioner were restricted to 50%. Concededly, the award rendered
by the Labour Court has since attained finality, and the petitioner
was reinstated into service. Meaning thereby, he has over 30 years
of service as of today. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
reference to the regularization policy, dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure
P-4), submits, that all those employees who had rendered five
years service as on 31.01.1996, their services had since been
regularized by the respondents. And, therefore, the claim of the
petitioner too ought to have been considered likewise.
Faced with this, learned State counsel prays for a
short accommodation, to furnish a specific affidavit, and explain
as to how in the given situation, the petitioner could be denied the
relief prayed for.”
10. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 16.04.2018, an affidavit dated
09.05.2018, was filed by the respondents. Stand taken in para Nos. 1 and 2 of
the said affidavit is as below :
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 5
“1. That the petitioner was employed as casual labour on daily
basis as Mali Cum Chowkidar, but the services of the
petitioner were brought to end, due to his absence on the
service. The petitioner moved to Hon’ble Labour Court.
Vide award dated 10.04.2000, the Hon’ble Labour Court
ordered that Sh. Bhoop Singh be reinstated with continuity
of service, along with 100% back wages. However in a
CWP No. 15175 of 2009 filed/preferred by the State,
against the order of Hon’ble Labour court, the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana, modified the award on
dt. 17.09.2009 to the extent that the back wages awarded to
petitioner be restricted to 50%. According to the judgment
of Hon’ble Court, the petitioner was reinstated on his
previous post and the arrear of back wages was also paid
to the petitioner vide cheque No. A541374 dt. 13.02.2012
amounting to Rs. 99,978.00
2. That the service of the petitioner could not be regularized
as per the policy of 07.03.1996 due to his absence & non
fulfillment of other necessary conditions/qualifications
mentioned in the policy. Further, case of petitioner was also
subjudice in the Hon’ble Labour Court. The petitioner
could not be regularized under the policy of 01.10.2003 as
well, for the same reason. Further the CWP No. 15175 of
2009 against the petitioner, was pending/subjudice in the
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which got its
finality on 17.09.2009 according to which the petitioner
was reinstated on his previous post and given 50% back
wages.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. Subsequently, vide an order dated 04.10.2018 passed by my
learned Sister Ritu Bahri, J. this petition was allowed, in terms of the common
judgment rendered in CWP No. 2009 of 2016, titled as “Balwinder Singh and
others v. State of Haryana and others”. However, as already mentioned above,
the said order along with common judgment was assailed by the respondent
State by filing various LPAs, which were allowed by the Letters Patent Bench
vide order dated 18.03.2019, remanding the matter back for a decision afresh.
12. In the second round of writ proceedings, vide an order dated
05.02.2020, this court once again, inter alia, directed the official respondents to
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 6
file specific affidavit of respondent No. 2, clarifying as to how and why case of
the petitioner was not considered for regularization. Said order is reproduced
below for ready reference :-
” Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/official
respondents and will file specific affidavit of respondent No.2
clarifying that pursuant to the award dated 10.04.2000 (Annexure
P-1) why the case of the petitioner was not considered for
regularization as per policy dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P4). The
petitioner had also expired on 23.10.2018. Respondent No.2 will
also clarify in the affidavit whether any compassionate assistance
has been granted to the family members of the petitioner. List on
15.04.2020.
Sd/- (RITU BAHRI)
05.02.2020 JUDGE”
13. Pursuant to above order, an affidavit dated 15.04.2021, has been
filed by respondent No. 2, para 3 and 4 whereof read as under:-
“3. That in compliance of the Hon’ble Court order dated
05.02.2020, and 18.02.2021, it is respectfully submitted
that the case of the petitioner was examined thoroughly by
the competent authority and after examining the same, it is
found that the case of the petitioner with respect to the
compassionate assistance is covered under the instruction
dated 28.07.2016 issued by the Chief Secretary to Govt. of
Haryana and compassionate financial assistance to the
family of the deceased amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs has already
been released vide EPS No. 0706023324 dated 08-04-2021,
copy of which is annexure R-1. Whereas, with respect to the
second query made by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
05.02.2020, it is respectfully submitted that the case of the
petitioner was not covered under the policy dated
07.03.1996 (annexure P-4), as the petitioner was not
fulfilling the term and condition of the policy and on the
basis of that the claim of the petitioner has not been
entertain, it is further respectfully submitted that the
petitioner was not in service on 31 January, 1996 and as
per term and condition of the policy the casual and daily
rated employee who have completed 3 years service on 31
January, 1996 and were in service on 31 January, 1996,
shall be regularized provided they have worked for a
minimum period of 240 days in each year and the brake in
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 7
service in any years is not more than one month at a time.
4. That the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed,
because he was not fulfilling the terms and conditions as
prescribed in the policy dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-4).”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the record with their assistance, I shall now proceed to record my
discussion and outcome thereof.
15. Pursuant to this court orders dated 16.04.2018 and 05.02.2020,
two affidavits dated 09.05.2018 and 15.04.2021, respectively have been filed
by the respondents. Ostensible reason of denial of regularization of services in
both the affidavits is that as on the cut-off date, i.e. 31.01.1996, petitioner was
not in service. He was thus not fulfilling the necessary conditions/qualifications
mentioned in the regularization policy dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-4). As
regards compassionate financial assistance to the family of the petitioner –
Bhoop Singh (since deceased), it is stated that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs has
already been released vide letter/order dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure R-1).
16. First, qua the denial of claim of regularization. Respondents’
defense does not stand judicial scrutiny. Reasons are not far to see. A bare
perusal of the record of the case itself would show that the benefit has wrongly
not been accorded to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents flies in the
face of the Labor Court award dated 10.04.2000 (Annexure P-1), vide which
the petitioner was held entitled to re-instatement with continuity of service.
Meaning thereby, the deserved consequential benefit ensuing out of the same
had to be accorded to the petitioner in totality. Needless to say, once the award
had attained finality there is no getting away from it and respondents are bound
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 8
by all the consequences flowing there from. The only modification made in the
award by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P-
2), was : “……The award of the Labour Court is modified only to the extent of
back wages by retaining the dispensation for reinstatement that instead of full
back wages, 50% of the back wages be given to the workman. …..”.
Resultantly, the petitioner for all legal purposes has to be considered de jure in
service as on 31.01.1996, even though de-facto he was not in service. He is,
therefore, held entitled to benefit of regularization of his services w.e.f.
31.01.1996 on that ground alone. Necessarily, all other benefits accruing
therefrom viz. fixation and revision of pay and allowances etc. are also to be
accorded to the petitioner once he is to be given the benefit of regularization as
on 31.01.1996. Because, he could not have been considered a daily wager
anymore.
17. As regards the compassionate assistance, once the petitioner is
held entitled to regularization of his services along with all other consequential
benefits, there is force in the argument, advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner, that compassionate assistance and other benefits are to be given as
per Rule 5 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of
Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 (for short, ‘the 2006 Rules’).
The relevant extract of Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules, which prescribes criteria for
financial assistance, is reproduced as under:
“5. (1) On the death of any Government employee, the
family of the employee would continue to receive as financial
assistance a sum equal to the pay and other allowances that was
last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course without
raising a specific claim –
(a) & (b) XXX XXX
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 9
(c) for a period of seven years or till the date the employee
would have retired from Government service on attaining
the age of superannuation, whichever is less, if the
employee had attained the age of forty-eight years.
(2) The family shall be eligible to receive family pension as per
the normal rules only after the period during which he receives
the financial assistance as above is completed.
(3) to (5) XXX XXX” (Emphasis supplied)
18. Date of birth of the petitioner was 04.07.1970 and he was more
than 48 years of age on the date he died i.e. 23.10.2018. Accordingly, his family
members are held entitled to financial assistance of a sum equal to the pay and
other allowances for a period of seven years, to be disbursed/calculated as per
what was last drawn by the deceased employee in the normal course without
raising a specific claim, after adjusting the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs already
released on 08.04.2021. The family is also held eligible to receive family
pension, if admissible, after completion of the period receipt of financial
assistance, as envisaged under Rule 15(2), ibid.
19. In the premise, petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is hereby
issued, commanding the respondents to regularize services of the petitioner
w.e.f. 31.01.1996, in terms of policy instructions dated 07.03.1996 and
18.03.1996 (Annexures P-4 & P-5), and also accord all the consequential
benefits viz. pay fixation/arrears of salary etc. arising there from. Resultantly, if
as per applicable Rules, the petitioner is found eligible and entitled to
pensionary benefits such as leave encashment, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
and family pension, the said benefits shall also be duly accorded to the widow
of the petitioner. Compassionate assistance to the eligible member(s) of his
family shall be also revised/released as per Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules. Needless
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
CWP-19793-2017 (O&M) 10
to say, amount of Rs. 3 lakhs, already disbursed towards compassionate
assistance on 08.04.2021, shall be adjusted against the dues/arrears payable to
the legal representative(s) of the petitioner.
20. Financial benefits qua regularization of services of the petitioner
shall be calculated and disbursed to the LRs within a period of 60 days from the
date the competent authority receives a web-print of the instant order, along
with interest @ 7% per annum, to be calculated from the due date of accrual,
till actual payment thereof. Interest on the balance amount of compassionate
assistance shall be calculated from the date of death of the petitioner, i.e.
23.10.2018 @ 7% per annum till the actual date of disbursement.
21. Allowed in above terms along with cost of litigation, which to say
the least, was completely needless but yet the petitioner was compelled into it.
Costs are moderately assessed as Rs.50,000/-, to be paid to the widow of
petitioner along with other dues.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
April 20, 2021
Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 05-06-2021 23:38:22 :::
Comments