Statutory Amendments Can't Be Applied Retrospectively To Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Employee: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that statutory amendments cannot apply retroactively to defeat the accrued rights of an employee who was serving continuously for decades. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed;"However, this Court finds that the petitioner entered service in 1989 and completed his qualifying period for regularization long before the 2016 amendment came into existence. Statutory amendments cannot apply retroactively to defeat the accrued rights of an employee who has been serving continuously for decades". Two petitions were filed by the petitioner, one seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to regularise the petitioner's service to the post of peon and the second challenging the illegal conduct of the respondents for their failure to pay his salary from March 2021. The petitioner was appointed in 1989 on a daily wage basis and had rendered 30 years of continuous service. Throughout this period, the respondents regularly deducted Provident Fund Contributions from his salary. Despite multiple recommendations for regularisation, no final decision was made. The petitioner thus filed the first petition. However, the petitioner alleged that after filing the first petition, the branch Manager started harassing him to withdraw the case. The petitioner conteded that the manager had forcibly restrained him from performing his duties, and hid the attendance register to prevent him from signing. Additionally, his salary was withheld from March 2021. The counsel for the bank argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available before the Labour Court. The counsel further argued that the post of peon was declared as a dying cadre through a notification of 2016, making regularisation legally impossible. The court noted that while courts generally refrain from directing the absorption of temporary employees, the scope of judicial review remains open to prevent 'manifest arbitrariness' and to ensure that the State acts as a model employer. The court noted that in the petitioner's 30 years of tenure, coupled with the Provident Fund deductions and appreciation letters, which indicated a service record that could not easily be disregarded. Further, the court rejected the State's contention that the petitioner was engaged merely on 89-day extensions, noting that this was a classic example of unfair labour practices. The fact that the petitioner was working continuously for 30 years with regular Provident Fund deductions, "shatters the illusion of temporary 89-day engagement".Additionally, the bench noted that other employees were regularised by the State after court orders; however, denying the same to the petitioner is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Regarding the issue of non-payment of salary, the court held, "The non-payment of salary from March 2021 is thus found to be an arbitrary, vindictive, and colourable exercise of power by Respondents No. 4 and 5. An employee rendering service cannot be deprived of his livelihood, which forms an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution". Thus, the court allowed both writ petitions and held that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation. Case Title: Ramcharan v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP 17383 of 2019]For Petitioner: Advocate Atul Kumar ChakarvartiFor State: Advocate Rajeev MishraClick here to read/download the Order

Statutory Amendments Can't Be Applied Retrospectively To Deny Regularisation Of Long-Serving Employee: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags