At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

“Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Rights of Long-Term Part-Time Employees, Directs Regularization and Compassionate Assistance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 7 July 2023, In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a judgment affirming the eligibility of long-term part-time employees for regularization of their services and the entitlement to compassionate assistance. The judgment, delivered by Justice Raj Mohan Singh, emphasized that the availability of sanctioned posts should not be a valid ground to deny regularization when employees have diligently served for a substantial period.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh stated in the judgment, “Long-term part-time employees should be eligible for regularization of their services. The continuous nature of their work demonstrates the need for their regular presence, and it is unjust to deny them regularization based on the availability of sanctioned posts.” This decision aligns with previous court orders and government policies supporting the regularization of long-term part-time employees.

The case, Bimla and others v. State of Haryana and others, involved the petitioners seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release service benefits, family pension, and financial assistance. The court recognized the entitlement of the deceased employee’s family to compassionate assistance, considering the deceased employee as a regular employee at the time of his death.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh further remarked, “The claim for compassionate assistance should be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant laws and policies. The deceased employee’s family deserves the support provided under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependent of the Deceased Employee Rules 2006.”

This ruling has far-reaching implications, as it sets a precedent for the regularization and compassionate assistance for long-term part-time employees in the state. The judgment aligns with the principles of fairness and upholds the rights of employees who have dedicated their services to an establishment for an extended period.

The court’s decision in Bimla and others v. State of Haryana and others underscores the need for employers to recognize and acknowledge the contributions of long-term part-time employees. The ruling also highlights the importance of implementing policies that promote job security and address the concerns of such employees.

With this judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring equal treatment and justice for long-term part-time employees, enabling them to avail themselves of regularization and compassionate assistance in a fair and equitable manner.

Date of Decision: 07.07.2023

Bimla and others vs State of Haryana and others

Latest Legal News