The Punjab and Haryana High Court has strongly criticized the prevalent practice in public institutions of replacing temporary employees with new ones rather than regularizing their services. The court made these observations while reinstating a teacher who had been terminated after serving for several years on a temporary basis.
Court's Observations on Regularisation
Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill, presiding over the case, noted that the culture of 'replace, don't regularise' is deeply entrenched in many public institutions. The court emphasized that such practices undermine the rights of employees who have served diligently for extended periods. The judge remarked that temporary employees cannot be kept in a state of perpetual uncertainty, and their services must be regularized if they meet the required qualifications and performance standards.
Details of the Case
The case involved a teacher who was appointed on a temporary basis in 2015 and continued to serve until 2022. Despite her satisfactory performance, she was terminated to make way for a new appointee. The teacher challenged her termination in court, arguing that she had been discriminated against and that her services should have been regularized.
The court agreed with her contention, stating that the institution's action was arbitrary and violative of her right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court directed the institution to reinstate the teacher with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and back wages.
Implications for Public Institutions
The judgment serves as a stern warning to public institutions that continue to exploit temporary employees. The court clarified that the practice of replacing temporary workers with fresh recruits to avoid regularization is illegal and unconstitutional. It further stated that institutions must formulate transparent policies for regularization based on merit and length of service.
Legal experts believe that this ruling will have far-reaching implications for thousands of temporary employees across various sectors, including education, healthcare, and administration. The court has set a precedent that temporary employees cannot be treated as disposable labor.
Reaction from the Petitioner
The reinstated teacher expressed relief and gratitude towards the court for upholding her rights. She stated that the judgment would give hope to many others in similar situations. Her lawyer highlighted that the case was a classic example of how institutions flout labor laws and constitutional principles.
The institution has been given a period of four weeks to comply with the court's order. Failure to do so may result in contempt proceedings.
