Accrued regularisation rights under an earlier policy cannot be defeated by subsequent policy changes or administrative inaction.

Baljit Singh joined the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board on 01.01.2000 as a Road Roller Driver on daily wages against a vacant and sanctioned post and was subsequently retained as a Peon after the road rollers became non-functional.

He claimed regularisation under the Haryana Government policy dated 01.10.2003, asserting that he fulfilled its conditions, that sanctioned Class-IV posts were available, and that his juniors had been regularised under the same policy.

The defendants contended that he had been engaged through a contractual agency and had not been appointed against a regular post.

The Trial Court granted regularisation from 18.06.2014 with consequential benefits and interest, but declined regularisation from 01.10.2003 on the ground that his case had not been considered earlier for administrative reasons.

The First Appellate Court dismissed both the defendants’ appeal and the plaintiff’s cross-objections, additionally holding that the 2003 policy was no longer in existence when the suit was instituted in 2015.

Whether the appellant was entitled to regularisation from 01.10.2003 under the policy of that date, despite the respondents’ failure to consider his case and the subsequent policy dated 18.06.2014?

Whether the 2003 policy had become ineffective or unavailable merely because it had been superseded or was not in force on the date of institution of the suit?

Whether denying the appellant regularisation from 01.10.2003, while regularising his similarly situated juniors under the same policy, violated Article 14 of the Constitution?

The Court applied the principle that an employee who fulfils all eligibility conditions under a regularisation policy while it is operative acquires a vested or crystallised right, which cannot subsequently be defeated by administrative inaction or a later policy.

It relied on Ashish Sharma v. State of Haryana, CWP-2158-2020 and connected matters, decided on 13.03.2024, and State of Haryana v. Balwinder Singh, LPA No. 688 of 2021 and connected matters, decided on 02.12.2022, holding that the policies dated 17.06.1997, 05.11.1999, 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 remained available for eligible employees who had not yet been regularised.

The Court further applied Article 14, including the principle that similarly situated employees must be treated alike and that arbitrary or selective State action is impermissible, relying on E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, and Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to FCI, (2014) 7 SCC 190.

The State, as a model employer, is required to act fairly, reasonably and non-arbitrarily in implementing its service policies.

The Court found that the appellant admittedly satisfied the requirements of the 2003 policy and that 49 out of 85 sanctioned Class-IV posts remained vacant, as admitted by the respondents’ witness.

The respondents’ unexplained reference to “administrative reasons” was held insufficient to justify non-consideration of an otherwise eligible employee, particularly when the failure resulted from the respondents’ own inaction.

The Court rejected the finding that the 2003 policy had ceased to operate, holding on the basis of Ashish Sharma and Balwinder Singh that the 2014 notification revived or preserved the applicability of the earlier policies to employees who had not been regularised.

Independently, the Court held that a subsequent policy could not be used to defeat a right that had already accrued under the 2003 policy, since the respondents could not take advantage of their own failure to act within a reasonable time.

The fact that the suit was filed in 2015 was immaterial because the suit enforced, rather than created, the appellant’s pre-existing right.

The regularisation of the appellant’s juniors under the same policy, without any legally sustainable distinction, further established discriminatory and arbitrary treatment contrary to Article 14.

The respondents were directed to grant all consequential benefits, including pay fixation or refixation and increments, together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accrual until realisation.

The benefits were directed to be released within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.