Can’t let residents suffer, must prioritise their needs

Don’t disrupt public services

The recent statewide mass leave by government employees in Punjab brought into the spotlight a difficult balance between employees’ right to protest and citizens’ right to uninterrupted public services. Government employees have a democratic right to peacefully protest and raise their demands regarding salaries and other service-related matters. However, when employees collectively miss duty, essential public services suffer, causing inconvenience to thousands of people who depend on government offices, hospitals, schools, transport and other departments. Ordinary citizens who have no role in the dispute often bear the greatest burden because of delayed services and financial losses. Therefore, protests should be organised in ways that minimise disruption to essential services. The government, on its part, must engage in timely dialogue and address legitimate grievances before situations escalate into mass protests. A responsible democracy requires both, accountable governance and responsible protest.

Novin Christopher

Govt Staffers have rights, just like us

The protesting workers are citizens of India and have the same rights as everyone else. As per the Constitution, they have a Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Hence, they should be allowed to protest and debate their issues. Their strike is against the government, not the common citizens. Sanitation workers serve the public every day and the government must talk to them and solve their problems. At the same time, the government must ensure citizens don’t suffer or lose out on basic services. It is the government’s job to listen to the workers’ demands while ensuring people get timely access to the services they need. The government should take a careful decision, ensuring there is no loss to the employees or the public. It is not in the spirit of India’s Constitution to harm one for another’s gain.

Harleen Kaur

August 27 wasn’t an easy day

August 27 was not an easy day for the people of Ludhiana. The mass protest by government employees across the city made an already difficult day—due to a slight drizzle in the morning and scorching heat afterwards—even more frustrating. To be fair, the demands of the protesting employees are not unreasonable. Every employee has the right to raise his or her voice when genuine demands are not being addressed. Their concerns deserve to be heard. However, what can’t be ignored is the inconvenience caused to people because of the protest. Roads and important intersections were jammed, making it difficult for people to reach their workplaces and other destinations. Many shops remained closed till 2 pm, affecting shopkeepers as well as customers. With Raksha Bandhan around the corner, the protest’s timing made things more difficult.

Sarabjot Singh

Essential services a priority

The right to protest is a fundamental right which includes the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Government employees, like other citizens, can raise their demands through peaceful protests. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest. Government employees also have a responsibility to ensure that essential public services continue without serious disruption. Basic public services directly affect the lives and welfare of citizens. Therefore, neither employees’ rights nor citizens’ needs can be completely ignored. The right to protest should be exercised peacefully and responsibly without unnecessarily disrupting essential public services. In cases of serious conflict, protecting the public interest and continuity of essential services should take priority.

Samreet Kaur

Resolve issues through dialogue

Though government employees have every right to protest, they can also press for their rights through peaceful means. Protests or collective leave disrupt public services and create obstacles for citizens, causing them immense hassle and hardship. Therefore, issues should be resolved through mutual dialogue and consensus with the government, rather than protests.

Arshleen Kaur

Mass leave was justified

The issue is a delicate one. The media and the courts have highlighted the right to protest of the citizens from time to time. It has also been emphasised that the public should not be made to suffer. The employees’ only tool was mass casual leave, and roads and railway lines were not blocked. They haven’t been left with any other avenue to air their grievances. It is for the government to deal with them in a balanced and justified manner. It should either convince the employees of its stand or accept their demands. No doubt, the public suffered some inconvenience. But such inconvenience also occurs when the government announces a holiday all of a sudden. Even VVIP visits lead to more inconvenience.

Ravinder Mittal

Service rules prohibit mass leave

The strike was state government employees was on a real issue. Lakhs of employees took mass leave. However, even with a valid demand, uninterrupted public service is more important than the right to protest. Government employees don’t have a fundamental right to strike. Service rules prohibit mass casual leave as a pressure tactic. The government can, and now has, issued show-cause notices for ‘unauthorised absence’. In case of a strike at a private company, the owner loses money. If the same situation arises at a government level, a common citizen loses. While the employees would still get their salaries, even if delayed, the public have no alternative. Ideally, employees should protest after duty hours, put on black badges and have gate meetings. They should be sure to keep health, education and revenue counters open. While their demand is justified, their methods cause hardships to the people.

Sukhdev Sharma

Find better ways to air grievances

Essential services, including healthcare, transport, education, documentation and legal matters, are mostly provided at government offices. The mass protests by way of casual leaves can disrupt daily life and harm vulnerable citizens. Government employees are being paid salaries and other allowances from the taxes paid by the citizens. The citizens, therefore, expect efficient public services from the employees. Disruptions in services are often viewed as a breach of the civic contract. The government employees must utilise designated administrative tribunals and grievance mechanisms, rather than disrupting public lives. As pillars of a democratic system, the rights to protest and bargain collectively empower employees to check arbitrary actions and apathy of institutions. Mass leave should be used as a last resort when all other channels or negotiations fail. Enforcement of harsh disciplinary actions can further harden the stance of the employee unions. The government must understand that addressing workforce’s grievances leads to efficient administration in the long run.

RS Sembhi

Must hear both sides

In a democracy, everyone has the right to protest peacefully for their genuine demands. Government employees also deserve this right. They may protest when their problems are not heard or their demands remain pending for a long time. However, government employees have a special responsibility because they provide services to the public. The mass leave on August 27 caused inconvenience to many people who depend on government offices and hospitals. For an ordinary citizen, even one day without an essential service can create serious problems. I believe that both sides are important. Employees should be free to protest but their protest should not completely stop essential public services. The government should also take employees’ concerns seriously and try to solve them through discussion. The right to protest is important but the right of citizens to receive essential public services should not be forgotten. A responsible protest should protect both, employees’ rights and public interests.

Harsharan Kaur

State govt must take timely call

In a democracy, every citizen has a fundamental right to raise their voice. Therefore, raising one’s voice for rights is not wrong. Government employees, being citizens themselves, have a democratic right to peacefully raise their genuine demands. However, the government should take timely initiative to address these concerns so that the employees’ rights are protected and public services remain uninterrupted. They are not protesting against the public and just demanding their legitimate rights. At the time, their protest should not unnecessarily harm the people they serve. The solution doesn’t lie in choosing between employees and citizens as government employees are citizens too. It lies in finding a balance where employees receive their legitimate dues and public get uninterrupted access to public services.

Khushdeep Kaur

Reflection of growing discontent

The mass leave protest on August 27 reflected growing dissatisfaction among state government employees. The protest was their way of pressing the government

into taking early action in connection with their

genuine demands.

Gursimran Kaur Dasdhol

Govt & its employees work for public

The people had to face a lot of hardships due to the protest on August 27. People suffered the most as they were forced to return from offices without getting their work done. Even patients had to return without seeing doctors. If employees have a problem, they should talk to the government or write a letter to higher ups. Closing all government services at the same time is not fair. The government also has a duty to listen to the employees so that they don’t have to go on mass leave. Essential service like health and water should not stop. Both, the government and the employees, must work together so that the public doesn’t suffer.

Karan Cheema

Delicate balance

The common people faced a lot of difficulties due to the mass leave by government employees on August 27. When government employees strike, vital sectors like health, welfare distribution and law enforcement stop functioning. For example, during the August 27 strike, the suspension of outpatient services at several public hospitals directly put patient health at risk. Balancing the democratic right of workers to protest against the citizens’ right to access uninterrupted essential public services is a delicate job. The right to protest should not completely override the public’s right to essential and uninterrupted services.

Anmol Singh

Govt staff also face problems

Government employees should be allowed to protest because they also face many problems at work. If they never speak up, their issues may remain unsolved. However, they should also think about the people who depend on government services every day. A long strike can create difficulties for patients, students and other citizens. In my view, both sides should try to solve the matter through meetings and discussions. Peaceful protests are a part of democracy but public services should not stop completely. When both parties, the government and its employees, act responsibly, everyone benefits. The government should listen to the genuine concerns of its employees and take timely action. At the same time, employees should ensure that their protest does not cause unnecessary hardship to the public.

Simranjit Kaur Shergill

Mustn’t halt services

Government employees are public servants. When they go on statewide mass leave, the common people suffer the most—garbage piles up, work at offices stops and health risks increase. Their protest is against the government, but the punishment is borne by the public. The Constitution gives the right to protest, but Article 19 also puts reasonable restrictions in public interest. For essential services, protest must be through alternative means like black badges, gate meetings after duty hours or legal recourse, not by halting services. The state government

must ensure a time-bound grievance redressal system so that employees do not

need to resort to mass leave. In a welfare state, uninterrupted public service must always take precedence over the right to protest.

Sehajpreet Kaur

People shouldn’t bear brunt

The right to protest is fundamental for any democracy to function. Every citizen has the right to raise his or her voice if he or she feels genuine demands are being ignored. But this can’t be at the cost of infringement of other citizens’ rights. If the common public has to bear the brunt, the purpose is far from being solved. People coming from far-flung areas for routine work at tehsils, district offices and other departments were harassed on August 27. A middle path needs to be adopted. The protest should be carried out in a way that the public is not inconvenienced. Alternative ways such as holding peaceful demonstrations and wearing black badges can be adopted. Taking out symbolic marches or choosing an interference-free spot for expressing resentment can also be thought of. This way, resentment can be shown without holding public services to ransom.

Aftab Fateh Singh Bains

Govt offices exist to serve people

Government employees are public servants who are paid by taxpayers. Their strikes and service delays affect the essential daily services and disrupt normal life, instead of solving the main issue. Hurting public welfare to press for demands is not the right way. At the same time, freedom of speech is a universal human right. Public workers need fair wages and safe working conditions. Their right to demand basic labour rights is important for a healthy system. However, citizens should not suffer for issues they did not create. Government offices exist to help and serve the public. This is the duty of state officials to ensure that hospitals and emergency teams keep working without interruption. Issues that arise between workers and management can be solved by appropriate methods, such as online complaints, without disturbing the routine life of people. But, in the end, a group’s right to protest can’t take away a citizen’s basic rights.

Simranjeet Kaur

Day-long leaves can be problematic

Protesting is a legal right for all citizens, including government employees. They should be able to demand their dues. It is mandatory for civil servants to resort to a strike if your requisitions remain unfulfilled. Fulfilling their demands will benefit them personally, and in turn, allow them to contribute to their families and the nation. In contrast, it causes significant hardship for the public because it shuts down service delivery. In conclusion, though striking for a few hours is a good idea, stopping all public services and day-long leaves can be problematic. Shutting down schools and colleges also poses issues for children.

Gagan Dhillon

Balanced approach necessary

The statewide mass leave caused widespread hardships for the public as people rely on government services. The right to peaceful protest is guaranteed under Article 19 but it conflicted with common people’s right to access uninterrupted public

services. Neither right should completely override the other. Administrative friction must

not spill over into public inconvenience. A balanced approach is required to minimise the citizens’ distress. Grievances can be addressed without paralysing civics infrastructure. To create a structural framework, the government must establish independent tribunals to resolve labour issues. Moreover, implementing digital grievance portals, appointing mandatory skeleton staff in public offices and laws that protect essential emergency services—such as transport and medical facilities—can protect workers’ rights as well as public convenience.

Parmeet Kaur