P&H HC Rejects Contract DEO’s Regularisation Claim, Says Earlier Panipat Service Couldn’t Be Clubbed With Fresh Sonipat Engagement

The petitioner was first engaged as a Data Entry Operator (DEO) through HARTRON in the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Panipat, from 3 June 2010.

After he stopped attending that office on 19 May 2012, he was freshly engaged in the Sonepat office from 1 June 2012 under a separate arrangement.

He challenged the order terminating his contractual services on 12 August 2014 and sought consideration for regularization under Haryana policies dated 18 June 2014 and 28 July 2014.

He argued that his service from 2010 satisfied the three-year qualifying period and that a Clerk post was available.

The State contended that his Sonepat engagement began only on 1 June 2012, so he had not completed three years by 28 May 2014.

It also relied on the termination clause in his engagement terms and on a report that his work and conduct were unsatisfactory.

The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution and the conditions in the Haryana regularization policy dated 18 June 2014. The policy required, among other things, completion of three years’ service as on 28 May 2014, satisfactory work and conduct, and compliance with the prescribed criteria; it also provided that no relaxation would be allowed and that regularization under the policy was a one-time measure, not a matter of right for a person who failed to meet its conditions.

The petitioner’s Sonepat engagement separately provided that the contract could be terminated unilaterally at any time, without assigning a reason or giving notice.

The Court also considered the policy dated 28 July 2014, but concluded that the petitioner was ineligible under that policy as well.

The Court treated the Sonepat engagement, effective 1 June 2012, as a fresh engagement by a different authority, independent of the earlier Panipat engagement. The petitioner therefore had not completed three years’ service by 28 May 2014, and the two periods could not be aggregated to qualify him for regularization.

The Court further held that the termination did not violate the terms of engagement, which allowed termination without notice or reasons; the petitioner had not challenged those terms.

In addition, the authority had reported that the petitioner’s work and conduct were unsatisfactory, including concerns about claimed travel expenses, so he did not satisfy the policy’s satisfactory-work condition.

The Court accordingly rejected his claims under both regularization policies.

It held that the petitioner’s separate engagements could not be clubbed, that he failed to meet the policy’s service and satisfactory-work requirements, and that regularization was not a matter of right.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.