of Punjab and Ors. Etc Vs. Supreet Rajpal and
Anr. Etc  Insc 1140 (13 November 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam
APPEAL NOS. 5165-5167 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.18877-18879 of
2005) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondents who were appointed
as part time lecturers with the following directions:
view of the above, the petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed
to consider the petitioners for regularisation de- hors of the contractual
clause indicated in the advertisement and also the same having been mentioned
in the terms of appointment. If regularised, they shall also be considered for
being placed in the regular pay scale with the initial pay payable accordingly.
This entire exercise be carried out by the respondents within three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. It may be clarified
that in view of the fact that the State has filed special leave petition
against the judgment rendered in Ms. Maninder Kaur's case (supra), the result
thereof shall also affect the consideration and the relief grantable and
granted to the petitioners. This fact, may be specifically mentioned in the
orders which may be passed by the concerned authorities. The cases where the regularisation
has already been granted pursuant to the aforestated policies of the Government
or as the case may be, they shall be considered for being placed in the
respective pay scales applicable accordingly and shall be placed at the initial
stage in accordance with the provisions of law.
order as to costs."
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prayer in the writ
petitions was not for regularisation of the services and the relief sought for
by them was different. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has directed to
consider the case of the respondents hereinafter for regularisation de- hors
the contractual clause indicated in the advertisement and mentioned in the
terms of appointment.
There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of hearing, had referred
to an order passed by this Court in a group of several Civil Appeals, i.e.
Civil Appeal No.8745 of 2003 and other appeals, in the case of Harguru Pratap
Singh 07.11.2003. Particular stress was laid on the following observations:
have carefully looked into the judgment of the High Court and other pleadings
that have been put forth before this Court. It is clear that though the
appellants may not be entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot be said
that they will not entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor that they
should not be continued till regular incumbents are appointed. The course
adopted by the High Court is to displace one adhoc arrangement by another adhoc
arrangement which is not at all appropriate for these persons who have gained
experience which will be more beneficial and useful to the colleges concerned
rather than to appoint persons afresh on adhoc basis. Therefore, we set aside
the order made by the High Court to the extent the same deny the claim of the
appellants of minimum pay scale and continuation in service till regular
incumbents are appointed. We directed that they shall be continued in service
till regular appointments are made on minimum of the pay scale. The appeals
shall stand allowed in part accordingly."
is also submitted that the case relied upon by the High Court has no relevance
as it did not relate to part time lecturers and in fact related to some other
part time engagements. It has also been submitted that in those cases also the
matter has been remitted to the High Court.
the peculiar facts of the case, we feel it would be appropriate for the High
Court to deal with the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated in Harguru's
matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.