HC pulls up Haryana for 13-year delay

In a scathing indictment of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has slammed its 13-year delay in addressing the absorption claims of four employees following the merger of the Fish Farmers Development Agency (FFDA) with the Fisheries Department. Taking strong exception to the arbitrary denial of benefits to employees who served for over two decades, the court termed it a “troubling lapse in administrative fairness” and a violation of fundamental principles of justice.

In his judgment, Justice Aman Chaudhary also took note of the fact that the petitioners before the court, appointed in 1994, included two retirees and one employee who passed away during the pendency of the case.

Justice Chaudhary observed that the petitioners, despite exhibiting hallmarks of regular and permanent employment, were subjected to uncertainty while their services were consistently utilised. “The disparate selection process being used to eclipse the claim of the petitioners cannot be the sole criterion to pass the litmus test; it is, in fact, an afterthought aimed at denying a relationship that, by nature, must be symbiotic,” the court asserted.

It expressed disapproval of the discriminatory conduct after observing that 44 other employees had been seamlessly absorbed, while the petitioners were arbitrarily denied the same benefit. The department violated the principle of non-retrogression by withholding the same benefit, the court observed, adding that any procedural deficiencies at the time of initial engagement had been cured through regularisation.

“The invocation of procedural formalities at the time of engagement cannot be used as an enduring excuse to deny the substantive rights that have been earned through a prolonged period of continuous service, as was held by the Supreme Court…,” the court asserted.

Justice Chaudhary also referred to the case of “State of Punjab and others versus Ram Charit Shukal”, where a Division Bench condemned the arbitrary and unjust treatment of a Class IV employee, who had served for over a decade. The Bench had characterised such actions as a glaring example of a "use and throw" mentality, while referring to the need to address such cases with fairness, empathy and an understanding that job security was integral to an employee’s confidence, dignity, and professional growth.

Raising an ethical dimension, he said, “In line even with Kantian ethics, it cannot be overstated that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves. Revoking the benefits undermines their autonomy and reduces them to mere tools for convenience.” The court also allowed the pleas after taking into consideration both the legal and factual aspects involved.