Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Retrenched Worker Denied Absorption For 30 Yrs Despite SC Order

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the State Government to pay ₹5 lakh as lump-sum compensation to a former Earth Work Mistri of the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project (ASHP), whose plea for absorption in government service remained unaddressed for decades despite explicit judicial directions.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "The sufferance of the petitioner stems from the State's failure to comply with the judicial directions issued in his favor, and later the spirit of the undertaking given by its own Advocate General before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While he diligently pursued his legal remedies across multiple judicial tiers, the State apparatus remained inert to his legitimate claims and repeated representations."BackgroundThe petitioner was appointed on a work-charged basis in 1978 and retrenched on 31.07.1985, receiving compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act. He was among the petitioners in Mehanga Ram & Ors. v. State of Punjab, where on 12.01.1989, a Division Bench directed the State to absorb all retrenched ASHP employees within six months and count their project service towards pensionary benefits.The Supreme Court later recorded an undertaking by the Punjab Advocate General on 04.08.1995, assuring issuance of appointment/transfer letters to all employees retrenched from the ASHP. The petitioner argued that he fell squarely within this class but was arbitrarily excluded while others received the benefit.The State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner was no longer in service when the 1993 policy was framed, he was not directly a party to the SLP in which the 1995 undertaking was given, and his application before the Supreme Court had been withdrawn in 1996 with liberty to approach the High Court.Rejecting State's opposition, the Court noted that in CWP No. 718 of 1986 Mehanga Ram & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors, contained a specific, positive, and mandatory direction for the absorption of retrenched employees like the petitioner within six months, which was declaratory in nature for all the employees, not confined to the employees who filed the writ petition.The undertaking by the Advocate General before the Supreme Court on 04.08.1995 was to issue appointment letters to "the employees whose services were terminated from the Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project." The petitioner indisputably falls within this class, it added further.Justice Brar observed that the very essence of a welfare state, as envisioned by our Constitution, is compromised when the instrumentalities of the State itself become a source of protracted litigation. The principle that the State must act as a 'model employer' is not a mere platitude but a constitutional mandate that informs its dealings with its employees. Once a competent court has settled a legal issue and granted a specific relief to a set of employees, the State is under a solemn obligation to extend the same benefit to all other similarly situated individuals without forcing them to embark upon a fresh and arduous legal journey, it added.The Court said that to do otherwise, to grant relief to one and deny it to another identically placed is the very definition of arbitrariness prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution. The State shoulders the profound responsibility of fostering justice and equity; it should, therefore, be a catalyst for the resolution of disputes, not the cause of their proliferation, the judge said.Citing several Supreme Court decisions including Gowramma C. v. HAL (2022) and Santosh Kumar Seal (2010), the Court held that reinstatement with back wages after such a long lapse—nearly four decades—would be impractical.Finding that the petitioner had suffered “significant hardship primarily due to administrative apathy,” the Court ordered a a lump sum amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as a monetary compensation sub-serving the ends of justice which shall be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.Title: Mohan Lal v. The State of Punjab and othersClick here to read order

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Retrenched Worker Denied Absorption For 30 Yrs Despite SC Order

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags