The Punjab and Haryana High Court has given a big decision to regularize the junior engineers appointed on contract between 2007 and 2010 in Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. A single bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal said that the petitioners were appointed on approved posts on the basis of prescribed qualification and age limit by issuing advertisement under proper procedure. In such a situation, keeping them on contract for more than 15 years is not only unfair, but it also comes under the category of exploitation. The court directed that all the petitioners be regularized within 6 weeks. If the orders are not implemented within the stipulated time limit, they will automatically be considered regular and will get the benefit of regular pay scale.
Petitioner Dildeep Singh and others were appointed on contract by the Municipal Corporation between 2007 and 2010 through advertisement. At that time the maximum age limit was 35 years and the required qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering. The selection process included document verification and interview. It was made clear in the appointment letter that this appointment would be on contract and permanent appointment cannot be claimed.
In the year 2012, the corporation constituted a committee to regularize the contract employees, but the report did not come. In 2014 and 2016, the corporation passed a resolution in the General House and recommended regularization and sent it to the Chandigarh Administration, but the administration rejected the proposal citing lack of any policy.
The court, citing the Supreme Court’s Jaggo vs Union of India (2024) and Uma Devi decisions, said that it is unacceptable to keep temporary employees on contract for a long time, despite the post being vacant. The court also said that the petitioners did not come through backdoor entry, but were selected through open advertisement and competitive process. The court remarked that it is unethical, inconsistent and arbitrary that regular Group-D employees are taking more salary than engineers. This situation is also impractical from the administrative point of view and is contrary to constitutional provisions. The court also gave a message to the administration that government institutions should act as model employers and exploitation of long-term contract or temporary employees should be stopped.
