HC warns state against refusal to honour SC rulings

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has admonished Haryana for the tendency to raise “frivolous objections” that amount to a refusal to acknowledge the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj warned that such conduct reflected a non-compliance mindset and “deserves imposition of harsh penalties.”

“It is noticed by this Court that the State generally tends to raise frivolous objections amounting to refusal to acknowledge the acceptance and applicability of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court. Such an attempt by the State reflects that it does not intend to comply with the judgments. Such acts deserve imposition of harsh penalties against the respondent State,” he said.

The parting remarks came as Justice Bhardwaj allowed five writ petitions filed by daily-rated employees of the Public Health Department. They were initially regularised to Group D posts despite their claim to Class III (water pump operator) posts. The court held that the employees were entitled to be regularised to Group III posts with effect from the date similarly situated employees were granted such benefit.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted the court was inclined to impose costs of Rs 50,000 each on the State for forcing the petitioners into unwarranted litigation, but restrained itself. The Bench, instead, advised the State to “examine the matter holistically in terms of the judgments that have already been passed and have attained finality.”

Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was told that the petitioners were engaged as daily-rated water pump operators and had completed five years of service as of March 31, 1993—the cut-off date under the regularisation policy dated March 31, 1993. They were, however, regularised as Group D “pump attendants”, even though they were serving in Class III posts and the vacancies existed. A supplementary policy dated May 11, 1994, provided for regularisation to Class III posts for those engaged in such posts.

The State claimed that the petitioners lacked the requisite qualifications for Class III appointments. Justice Bhardwaj rejected the objection while observing: “The objection of the respondent-State was that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications, i.e. they were not in possession of ITI certificate. The respondent’s objection was rejected by this Court after specifically noticing that position in law is no longer res integra and the Division Bench also considered the question and ruled against the respondent.”

Haryana Tribune