judgement of high court regarding deemed universities

[dr kamal]

here is 160 page verdict regarding distance education from deemed universities by punjab and haryana high court..

judgement.pdf

judgement.pdf

judgement.pdf

judgement.pdf

judgement.pdf

judgement.pdf

judgement.pdf

[VOPunjab]

Thanks doc. i tried to read but its holy 160 pages. Can you tell in nutshell whats the verdict ?

[dr kamal]

I did not read it either but all i want to know that pharmacist working under ZP who have diploma from JRN university rajsthan are affected by this verdict or not..kindly tell

[VOPunjab]

i didn't read it either, i just overlooked few lines and to what i understand, it affects nurses, husbandry workers(humans) etc,, no description of vety. But the judgement of this/this judgement can be the basis of that case as well in future.

But still, i didn't read it full, there may be reference of Vety pharmacists.

 

And i guess i wont be reading it either mainly coz its 160 pages that doesn't concern us. Let pharmacists read these n we'll hear from them

[dr kamal]

In a significant judgment affecting employees hired by

the Punjab Government through ``service providers'' ,

the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear

that they are not covered under the state government's

policy for regularisation of service.

The significance of the judgment by Justice Surya Kant

and Justice Surinder Gupta can be gauged from the fact

that the Bench disposed of no less than 17 appeals filed

by the employees hired through service providers.

In their appeals against the State of Punjab and other

respondents, Nishan Singh and others appellants had

earlier challenged a judgment passed by a Single Judge

on February 28. The Judge had dismissed the writ

petitions for regularisation of their services ``in view of

the policy decision'' dated March 18, 2011, issued by

the Punjab Government.

Engaged by a service provider, they were posted at the

offices of Deputy Commissioners and Department of

Excise and Taxation. Adjudicating the question whether

employees engaged by any service provider were

covered by the state policy of March 2011, the Single

Judge ruled that the relationship of employer and

employees did not exist between the government

departments and the appellants. Taking up the appeal,

the Bench asserted:

“The submissions that the appellants are employees

engaged by the respondent departments and the service

provider has been used as a camouflage to deny the

appellants their status as government employees or

consequent at regularisation under the government

policy and other statutory benefit has no substance or

legal basis...

“ The state has taken a policy decision for regularising

the services of contractual employees who were

appointed after fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the

procedure. In the case of appellants, neither were they

selected under the Service Rules applicable to regular

employees of Punjab, nor was there an advertisement

issued by the state under which they applied for their

engagement as regular or contractual employee of the

state.

“It was the service provider who entered into an

agreement with the state agency to provide workforce

on certain terms and conditions. The service provider

selected the candidates and supplied the same to the

government department. A service provider is not an

agency of the state to make recruitment against civil

posts...”

POLITICS

[dr kamal]

In a ruling that would discourage the state governments to give employment through back door by engaging workers on daily wages or contract, the Supreme Court has held that such employees would not be entitled to salary equal to those of regular employees recruited through a due selection process laid down under the law.

 

Deciding a bunch of appeals by the Haryana Government against the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment holding that employees once recruited irrespective of the selection process, were entitled to “equal pay for equal work” under Article 14 of the Constitution.

 

The apex court further held that the employees engaged on contract for a specific job, could not claim regularisation, as their service would be strictly guided by the terms and conditions of the contract.

 

The Haryana Government, which itself was responsible for giving back-door employment to hundreds of persons by engaging them on daily wages and contract in Class III and IV grades in various departments over the years, had moved the Supreme Court, challenging the High court order.

 

Setting aside the impugned judgment, a Bench of Mr Justice S N Variava, Mr Justice A R Lakshmanan and Mr Justice S H Kapadia took exception to the High Court deciding all the cases in a “mechanical” manner. “The principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case,” the Bench ruled.

 

The Supreme Court said “Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out... the very fact that those employees who have not gone through the process of recruitment may itself in certain cases, make a difference... even though the persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ.”

 

“Where persons are selected by a selection committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority, a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged,” it said.

 

The Bench said for the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, the courts had to consider various dimensions of a given job. “The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volumes of work,” it observed.

 

The court said reliability and responsibility towards the job of a persons coming through a legally laid down selection process would be more than those engaged on daily wages or contract.

 

Since many of the daily wage employees were regularised while the case was pending in the High Court and the Supreme Court, such workers had claimed back wages with arrears, therefore, the apex court referred all cases back to the High Court with a direction that each and every matter should not be decided in a “mechanical” manner.

 

“These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere,” the Bench said adding, “In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors.”

 

Laying down guidelines to the High Court how to proceed with these cases, the apex court said it must satisfy itself that the work discharged and the condition of service of a daily wager was equal to that of regular employees, if at all a case was made out for grant of relief.

 

Regarding contract employees, the Bench said that the High Court had to take into consideration the terms and condition of the contract.