“The justification for the contractual nature of the appointment shall be based on financial, economic and administrative reasons.” The court said that under the directive, financial constraints on salary and pension had become unbearable during regular appointments. “Such a decision would completely nullify the purpose and importance of the contract designation policy and leave no difference between a contract employee and a regular employee,” the decision said. The Chamber allowed appeals by the Punjab Department of Livestock and Dairy Products against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal that regularized dozens of contract employees from the date of their first appointment. “The fact remains that respondents worked as part-time employees and were paid employees on time. There are no sanctioned positions in the post office where the defendants worked, so the Supreme Court`s instructions in the decision and order are not admissible,” the Supreme Court said in its decision. Only persons appointed before 10 April 1996 may apply for regularization on the basis of the Supreme Court`s judgment. Not all employees who serve a 10-year period of service can be appointed on the basis of Uma Devi`s judgment. The court gave only one chance to regularize employees with 10 years of service while reviewing the case. Counsel Anwaar Hussain, who represented the appeal, argued that the respondents were not entitled to regularization from the date of their first appointment because they did not have a legitimate right to a regular appointment. A three-member panel chaired by Judge Manzoor Ahmad Malik ruled on a legal question as to whether the date of regularisation of contract agents is the date of their first appointment on a contractual basis or the date of their regularisation in accordance with the 2010 regularisation policy. The decision stipulates that the regularisation of a contract agent is therefore a new appointment in the flow of regular appointments. Although a list of 29 employees has been submitted to the Finance Department for regularization, it has been announced that employees cannot be regularized on the basis of the decision rendered in the Uma Devi case in 2006. The Supreme Court has ruled that part-time workers are not eligible for regularization because they do not work against a sanctioned position in the government.
The court ruled in favour of the government, which appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Punjab and Haryana to regularize part-time workers. Thiruvananthapuram: On 10 April 2006, the five-member Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court handed down the verdict in the Umadevi case, which the government considers a benchmark for the regularization of contract employees. The Kerala Supreme Court also ordered that measures related to staff sustainability be taken only on the basis of the decision. “The development of a system is not a function of the court and the sole prerogative of the government. Even the creation and/or sanction of posts is also the sole prerogative of the government and the Supreme Court, in the exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot directly issue and/or order the posts to create and sanction,” the court ruled. Regardless of whether the appointment to the name is made under the same procedure of public announcement and control by the Punjab Civil Service Commission, it is still a contractual appointment for a limited period of time and is different from a regular appointment, by which a person obtains the status of civil servant. It is important to mention here that from 2004 to 2009, up to three dozen respondents were appointed on a contractual basis as veterinarians in Class 17 of the Department of Livestock and Dairy Development of Punjab. Its services were then regularised with immediate effect by decree of 15.2.2011.
The respondents` complaint was that they should have been settled on a contractual basis from the date of their first appointment and not on February 15, 2011. Lawyer Mahmood Ahmad Qazi, the defendant`s lawyer, referred to the contractual policy and said that at any time the government decides to regularize the services of contract employees, they should be regularized from the date of their first appointment. Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna made it clear in a recent decision that there can be no permanent retention of part-time workers. Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah approved a six-page decision that is part of the bank in the case, ruling: “The regularization of a contract employee is . a new appointment in the flow of regular appointments. A contract employee becomes a civil servant for the first time.” “It is emphasised that contract staff have no acquired right to regularisation, let alone to regularisation from a certain date. The benefit of regularization granted to them as part of the regularization policy is prospective in nature and there is no legal justification for applying it retroactively,” reads the addition of such a measure, which would completely deny the purpose and meaning of the “contractual designation policy” and would not allow any distinction between a contract employee and a regular employee. According to the decision, those who have been appointed temporarily should have all the rights of the position to be regularized. Appointments should only be made to recognized positions. The employee should also have a 10-year period of service, which should not be based on a court decision.
A decision drafted by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah states that a contract employee is appointed under a completely different system than a regular appointment, and that a contract agent is not entitled to be appointed regularly or easily transferred to the regular appointment regime. .
