Chandigarh didn’t give MC nod to notify regularisation policy, says High Court

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, June 7

Nearly 15 years ago, a five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Central or the state governments may consider framing a policy as a one-time measure to regularise the services of the employees working against sanctioned posts for more than 10 years. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the Chandigarh Administration did not grant permission to the Municipal Corporation to notify the regularisation policy.

The fact came to the fore as Justice Anil Kshetarpal of the High Court dismissed a bunch of 20 writ petitioners. The petitioners, among other things, were seeking appropriate directions to the Union Territory and another respondent to frame a policy for regularisation of contractual employees working in various establishments, departments and branches falling under purview of the UT Administration.

Appearing before Justice Kshetarpal’s Bench through videoconferencing, counsel for the petitioners relied upon the minutes of the Municipal Corporation’s General House meeting held on November 14, 2019.

Justice Kshetarpal observed that it was an admitted position that the policy was neither adopted nor approved. In fact, the Chandigarh Administration did not grant permission to the Municipal Corporation to notify the regularisation policy as proposed in the meeting.

The counsel also told the Bench that the petitioners were now being sought to be replaced by another set of temporary employees, which could not be permitted. It was further contended that a Municipal Corporation committee, at its meeting held on July 28, 2014, had framed a draft policy by laying down certain conditions for regularisation.

After hearing the contentions, Justice Kshetarpal asserted that the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, issued a recruitment notice on March 26, inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling posts on a temporary basis, which were likely to be regularised.

“Thus, there is enough indication in the recruitment notice that the posts are likely to be regularised. The eligible candidates will have the opportunity to apply and compete, which is in accordance with the requirement of the Constitution,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted.

Dismissing the petition in limine or at the threshold, Justice Kshetarpal observed that only one petitioner was appointed on March 22, 2006. The remaining petitioners were appointed after the judgment. Another petitioner had also not completed 10 years of service on the date of judgment.