Short Breaks In Continuous Service Won't Make Ad Hoc Employee Ineligible For Regularisation: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that mere short breaks in the ad hoc service would not affect the continuity in the service to render an employee ineligible for the benefit of regularization of service. A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling, which had denied regularisation to the appellants, appointed as peons and clerks in the Punjab Government's Finance Department in 1995–96 on an ad hoc basis, solely on the ground that their service records reflected breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that similarly situated employees, who had even longer service breaks, were granted regularisation, and the denial of the same benefit to them amounted to a violation of the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the Respondent-authority contended that since the Appellants engagements were not continuous, therefore, their breaks in the ad hoc service would make them ineligible under the policy. Finding force in the Appellants' contention, an order pronounced by Justice Masih observed that “the breaks do not reflect any genuine abandonment of service or voluntary cessation of employment.” “Therefore, we are of the opinion that the long service of the Appellants cannot be disregarded in lieu of artificial breaks and by leveling the initial employment as ad hoc.”, the court held. State Can't Act Selectively The Court noted that while other similarly placed employees were granted the benefit of regularization of service, a case for parity was made out to extend the same to the Appellants. “…it has come on record that a large number of similarly placed employees have been regularized in various departments of the State Government in view of the policy instructions dated 26.05.2003 and15.12.2006 in spite of the fact that there were breaks in their service as in the case of the present Appellants. The details of as many as 46 ad hoc employees who were given the benefit of the policies have been brought forward who had breaks ranging from a period of 64 to 334 days i.e. periods longer than that in the case of the Appellants. This fact has not been disputed by the Respondents. Therefore, a case for parity is made out as the Appellants have service record with breaks ranging from merely 5 to 187 days. The State cannot selectively deny the application of the policy to the Appellants, who are identically situated with these persons, with no cogent justification.”, the court observed. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the services of the Appellants were directed to be regularized. “The Respondents are directed to pass the order of regularisation of the services of the Appellants within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Their pay and allowances shall be fixed from the initial date of regularisation. The Appellants would be entitled to continuity of service with all consequential benefits including increments and other benefits as a regular employee except for the actual financial benefits till date.”, the court ordered.HeadnoteService Law – Regularization of Ad Hoc Employees – Doctrine of Parity – Artificial Breaks in Service – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal of the Appellants' claim for regularization of services - The Appellants, appointed as peons and clerks on an ad hoc basis in 1995-96, were denied regularization by the State on the grounds of non-continuous service due to breaks ranging from 5 to 187 days - Supreme Court found that the State had regularized 46 other similarly placed employees who had service breaks ranging from 64 to 334 days periods significantly longer than those of the Appellants - held that the State cannot selectively deny the application of policy instructions to identically situated persons without cogent justification. [Para 17-19]Artificial Breaks – Supreme Court observed that the breaks in service were "artificial in nature" as the Appellants were consistently re-engaged and continued to discharge their duties on the same posts. Such breaks do not reflect genuine abandonment of service. Long service cannot be disregarded by labeling initial employment as ad hoc and relying on artificial breaks - Supreme Court directed the regularization of the Appellants' services with effect from the date similarly situated persons were regularized under the 26.05.2003 policy - Appellants are entitled to continuity of service, increments, and retiral benefits, though actual financial benefits are restricted to the period from the date of the order/reporting for duty. [Relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1; Para 20-22]Cause Title: PREM CHAND AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHERCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 394Click here to download orderAppearance: For Appellant(s) :Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr....

Short Breaks In Continuous Service Won't Make Ad Hoc Employee Ineligible For Regularisation: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Short Breaks In Continuous Service Won't Make Ad Hoc Employee Ineligible For Regularisation: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers