HC lays down parameters for consideration of regularisation cases

Deeply pained by the plight of employees forced into repeated litigation for reliefs already granted, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has framed a set of parameters for consideration in matters of regularisation of services. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that “true justice is realised only when the administration acts promptly and effectively to enforce the decisions of the courts” while cautioning that habitual administrative negligence and indifference erode public confidence in the justice system.

Allowing the petition of employees denied benefits despite nine rounds of litigation, Justice Brar asserted what had “deeply pricked the conscience of this court is that the petitioners, after rendering spotless and unblemished service for nearly three decades, have been compelled to approach this court for the ninth time seeking the reliefs rightfully due to them.”

Justice Brar asserted that the first petition in the matter had been allowed as far back as 2005, yet the petitioners had been “forced to run from pillar to post in pursuit of the very benefits they are legally entitled to.”

Holding that the State, as a model employer, bore a constitutional duty to implement court orders without delay, he added: “Belonging to the bottom of the administrative pyramid, the petitioners continue to suffer due to the inaction of the State, which bears the constitutional duty to act as a model employer.”

Justice Brar flagged that a widespread problem in public institutions was the deliberate delay in enforcing service-related judgments, which ultimately defeated “the fundamental purpose of judicial adjudication.”

Laying down specific parameters for consideration in regularisation matters, Justice Brar directed that accountability and responsibility must be clearly defined in every order. “Each order must clearly specify the officer responsible for its implementation. In cases of delay, personal accountability should be recorded in the concerned officer’s service record,” the Bench ruled.

The Judge further mandated that statutory time limits be fixed for implementing service-related judgments. “Failure to comply within this period must automatically trigger accountability mechanisms,” he underscored, adding that delays could no longer be tolerated as a systemic norm.

Justice Brar also called for the creation of monitoring mechanisms in every department through centralised ‘Judgment Implementation Cells’, which would track compliance and submit quarterly reports to the departmental head for appraisal and action.

On digital transparency, the court emphasised that the implementation status of court orders should be accessible on an online portal to provide visibility to employees. “Further, there should be digitalisation of service records to reduce procedural bottlenecks,” Justice Brar observed.

The judgment went on to prescribe Pre-Litigation Grievance Redressal within departments, so that employees need not rush to court for matters already settled in law. Justice Brar said such mechanisms would substantially cut down on unnecessary litigation and reduce the burden on judicial bodies.

For capacity-building, Justice Brar directed regular training and awareness sessions to sensitise officers about the constitutional importance of implementing court orders, the rule of law, and the “serious consequences of administrative indifference.”

The court also linked compliance to performance appraisals. “Compliance with judicial directives should form a part of the measurable performance evaluation criteria in the annual appraisals of administrative officers,” Justice Brar held.

Summing up, Justice Brar asserted that “addressing administrative indifference in the execution of court orders calls for a blend of transparent practices, strict accountability, technology-based monitoring, and a shift in bureaucratic culture.”

Justice Brar warned that unless such measures were enforced, employees would continue to be compelled into “repetitive litigation” and the rule of law would remain undermined.

Concluding the matter, Justice Brar allowed the petition and directed the respondent-Corporation to regularise the services of the petitioners.