http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5165-5167 of 2007

PETITIONER: State of Punjab and Ors. etc

RESPONDENT: Supreet Rajpal and Anr. etc

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5165-5167 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.18877-18879 of 2005)  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at  Chandigarh allowing the writ petitions filed by the  respondents who were appointed as part time lecturers with  the following directions:

       "In view of the above, the petitions are  allowed and the respondents are directed to  consider the petitioners for regularisation de- hors of the contractual clause indicated in the  advertisement and also the same having been  mentioned in the terms of appointment.  If  regularised, they shall also be considered for  being placed in the regular pay scale with the  initial pay payable accordingly.  This entire  exercise be carried out by the respondents  within three months from the date of receipt of  certified copy of this judgment.  It may be  clarified that in view of the fact that the State  has filed special leave petition against the  judgment rendered in Ms. Maninder Kaur’s  case (supra), the result thereof shall also affect  the consideration and the relief grantable and  granted to the petitioners.  This fact, may be  specifically mentioned in the orders which may  be passed by the concerned authorities.  The  cases where the regularisation has already  been granted pursuant to the aforestated  policies of the Government or as the case may  be, they shall be considered for being placed in  the respective pay scales applicable  accordingly and shall be  placed at the initial  stage in accordance with the provisions of law.   No order as to costs."          3.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  prayer in the writ petitions was not for regularisation of the  services and the relief sought for by them was different. By the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

impugned judgment, the High Court has directed to consider  the case of the respondents hereinafter for regularisation de- hors the contractual clause indicated in the advertisement and  mentioned in the terms of appointment.

4.      There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of  hearing, had referred to an order passed by this Court in a  group of several Civil Appeals, i.e. Civil Appeal No.8745 of  2003 and other appeals, in the case of Harguru Pratap Singh  and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., etc. disposed of on  07.11.2003. Particular stress was laid on the following  observations:          "We have carefully looked into the  judgment of the High Court and other  pleadings that have been put forth before this  Court.  It is clear that though the appellants  may not be entitled to regular appointment as  such it cannot be said that they will not  entitled to the minimum of the pay scale nor  that they should not be continued till regular  incumbents are appointed.  The course  adopted by the High Court is to displace one  adhoc arrangement by another adhoc  arrangement which is not at all appropriate for  these persons who have gained experience  which will be more beneficial and useful to the  colleges concerned rather than to appoint  persons afresh on adhoc basis.  Therefore, we  set aside the order made by the High Court to  the extent the same deny the claim of the  appellants of minimum pay scale and  continuation in service till regular incumbents  are appointed.  We directed that they shall be  continued in service till regular appointments  are made on minimum of the pay scale.  The  appeals shall stand allowed in part  accordingly."

6.      It is also submitted that the case relied upon by the High  Court has no relevance as it did not relate to part time  lecturers and in fact related to some other part time  engagements.  It has also been submitted that in those cases  also the matter has been remitted to the High Court.  

7.      On the peculiar facts of the case, we feel it would be  appropriate for the High Court to deal with the matters afresh  in the light of what has been stated in Harguru’s case (supra).   The matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh  consideration.

8.       The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as  to costs.