'Frame Humane Policy': Punjab & Haryana High Court Seeks Union's Response On Regularisation Of Contractual MGNREGA Employees

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought the Union Government's response on a plea filed by contractual Accounts Assistants working under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) seeking regularisation of their services against sanctioned posts.

The Court observed that MGNREGA is a flagship welfare programme of the Government of India and it's the effective implementation depends upon the dedicated services of personnel such as the petitioners who have been continuously working for long years against sanctioned posts.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "the court finds it imperative that union of India being the nodal authority of the scheme, frames a comprehensive and humane policy for such employees who have devoted the prime of their work lives to the execution of governmental programmes so that they are not left in the lurch consideration of fairness, compassion and social justice demand that the state as a model employer addresses their legitimate expectations. In a sympathetic manner, consistent with constitutional principles and the law laid down by the Supreme Court."

The petitioners contended that they were appointed through a due, transparent selection process, possess the requisite qualifications, and have been continuously discharging duties for over a decade to the satisfaction of the authorities.

Counsel for the petitioners Harpriya Khaneka argued that their case was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Jaggo v. Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024, decided on 20 December 2024; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), wherein similarly situated contractual employees appointed against sanctioned posts were held entitled to consideration for regularisation.

It was submitted that denial of regularisation despite long and uninterrupted service was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that MGNREGA is a flagship welfare scheme of the Government of India, and its effective implementation depends upon the dedicated services of personnel such as the petitioners, who have been working for long years at the grassroots level against sanctioned posts.

The Court noted that these workers have been left in a state of uncertainty and insecurity due to the absence of a clear policy for regularisation, and found support for this view in the Supreme Court's observations in Jaggo, where the Apex Court held that:

"Long and consistent service, repeated extensions, absence of adverse records, and performance indistinguishable from that of regular employees warrant equitable treatment and consideration for regularisation."

The Court further emphasised that the Union of India, as the nodal authority of the scheme, must frame a comprehensive and humane policy for such employees, guided by principles of fairness, compassion, social justice, and the State's role as a model employer.

Issuing notice of motion, the High Court directed the Union of India represented by ASG Satya Pal Jain, to file an affidavit setting out its stand on the issue of regularisation of contractual MGNREGA personnel.

Title: Mr. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Click here to read order