Facts of the Case:

The case involved a batch of writ petitions filed by various petitioners who were working as temporary employees in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. These employees sought the benefit of regularization of their services. In the present petitions, the petitioners claimed that, despite their temporary status, they were actively performing their duties on their respective posts, and the posts they occupied still existed. They requested the court to allow them to continue working in their current positions until the respective posts no longer existed, subject to their satisfactory performance. Additionally, the petitioners prayed that they should not be replaced with other temporary employees, which could cause prejudice to them.

Another issue in one of the cases involved a petitioner, Ms. B, whose service was terminated while she was on maternity leave. The petitioner’s maternity leave was curtailed, leading to the termination of her services. She argued that her termination during maternity leave was unlawful and sought the restoration of her services, along with the salary for the period she was on maternity leave.

Contention of the Petitioners:

The petitioners contended that they were performing their duties on the respective posts and that these positions still existed. Therefore, they argued that they should be allowed to continue in service until the work of these posts ceased. They further prayed that they should not be replaced by a new set of temporary employees, which would cause them to lose their current position under the same terms and conditions.

In the case of Ms. B, the petitioner claimed that her service termination was unjustified, as she was on maternity leave, and her leave was curtailed to facilitate the termination. The petitioner argued that the termination during maternity leave violated her rights and requested the salary for the period of maternity leave.

Contention of the Respondents:

The respondents, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, opposed the petitioners’ claims for regularization. They pointed to a previous case, Bikramjit Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, where a similar request for regularization was rejected. The respondents also argued that temporary employees could not be permanently retained if there were no posts available or if their tenure was no longer justified by the work at hand.

In response to the claim of termination during maternity leave, the respondents did not provide a valid justification for curtailing the maternity leave. They argued that the services of temporary employees could be dispensed with based on the work available, and no special consideration should be given to Ms. B’s case.

Court’s Observations:

The Court, led by Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, observed that the petitioners could continue in service provided they were actually working on the respective posts and if the work of the post continued to exist. The Court further emphasized that the petitioners could not be replaced by other temporary employees, as per the settled principle of law. However, the Court clarified that the petitioners could be replaced by regular employees if such replacements were required.

Regarding the claim of Ms. B, the Court found that the curtailment of her maternity leave to facilitate her termination was unlawful. The Court noted that once an employee is on maternity leave, the period of maternity leave cannot be curtailed to terminate the services of the employee. The respondents failed to provide any valid justification for the termination during maternity leave. Consequently, the Court directed that Ms. B should be paid the salary for the period of maternity leave, as her services were wrongfully terminated during this time.

Court’s Decision:

Regarding the Petitioners’ Request for Regularization and Continuation in Service: The Court directed that the petitioners, who were still performing their duties, could continue in service as long as the work for their respective posts existed. The petitioners would not be replaced by another set of temporary employees under the same terms and conditions.

Regarding Ms. B’s Maternity Leave and Service Termination: The Court ruled that the curtailment of maternity leave and subsequent termination of services was unlawful. The respondent authorities were directed to pay the salary to Ms. B for the period of maternity leave for which she had already been granted leave by the competent authority. The termination of her services was deemed effective only after the completion of her maternity leave.

Regarding Employees Whose Services Were Already Terminated: The Court made it clear that the order would not apply to petitioners whose services had already been terminated. However, the Sessions Division was directed to consider the claims of those employees in case temporary appointments were made in the future, with due consideration given to the experience they had gained during their previous service.

Arrears of Salary: The Court instructed that the arrears of salary due to Ms. B for her maternity leave should be released within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the order.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions were disposed of in the above terms, with the Court providing relief to the petitioners who were still in service, allowing them to continue as long as their posts remained active. The case of Ms. B was resolved in her favour, ensuring she was compensated for the period of maternity leave during which her termination was unlawful. The Court also provided clarity on the issue of temporary employees, indicating that they could not be replaced by new temporary employees under the same conditions.

Credits: Deeksha Rai