Undertakings From Reinstated Employees Forgoing Past Service Benefits Are Void Ab Initio: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Petition before the High Court was preferred under Articles 226,227 of the Constitution seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order and seeking a direction to the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner towards regularisation and calculation of pension.

The Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted, “Unfortunately, the practice of extracting undertakings from employees who have been reinstated after tedious litigation is rather common. These undertakings are exploitative as they often pertain to forgoing past service benefits including arrears of salary, increments, continuity of service and retiral benefits and are obtained by placing the employees under duress. Often the reinstated employees are issued fresh appointment letters, as is the case in the matter at hand, to deny them any benefits of their past service, which directly impacts their regularization, seniority and pensionary benefits. Considering that livelihoods are at stake, the employees often remain silent in the face of these exploitative practices. This Court cannot allow an employer to take advantage of their employees’ financial circumstances to bend them to their will. As such, the question framed above is answered in the following terms- Such exploitative undertakings are void ab initio since no employee can be forced to contract out of his statutory rights.”

Advocate Amrindra Pratap Singh represented the petitioner while AAG Vikas Sonak represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner joined the respondent-Municipal Council, Khanna as a Tubewell Operator. His services were eventually regularised in the year 1994 as he had completed 240 days in terms of instructions dated December 19, 1993. However, on March 29, 1994, the services of the petitioner were terminated without issuing any show cause notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an order directing that the services of the petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages.

Thereafter, a resolution was passed by the respondent/Council whereby it was agreed that the petitioner be reinstated subject to him furnishing an affidavit claiming that he would not claim any arrears. In order to regain employment, the petitioner submitted an affidavit and he was given a fresh appointment. The petitioner moved a representation before the Director, Department of Local Self Government, stating that his services w.e.f July 23, 1992, to June 25, 2012 also be counted towards regular service for increment and pensionary benefits. However, his claim was denied vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was unjustly terminated by the respondent/Council without issuing a show cause notice or allowing him an opportunity to defend himself. It was noticed that the Industrial Tribunal had directed the petitioner to be reinstated. It was categorically mentioned that he be granted continuity of service as well as full back wages. “Much to the chagrin of this Court, the act and conduct of the respondent/Council demonstrates no regard for the said award”, it added.

The Bench also noted, “Visibly, the petitioner did not have a real choice and had to submit to the whimsical approach of the respondent/Council as he was struggling financially for over a decade subsequent to his abrupt and illegal termination. As such, in view of Sections 16, 19A and 23 the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which declares any contract which has been entered into under undue influence as voidable or where the object of the said contract is against public policy, as void, the respondent/Council cannot be allowed to take shelter of the affidavit (Annexure P-7) to justify denying the petitioner his legal right, especially in view of the fact that it was them who erroneously terminated his services in the year 1994.”

As per the Bench, the petitioner was given a fresh appointment, apparently merely to deny him any benefits of past service for reasons best known to the respondent/Council, as no explanation was put forth by it in the impugned order. “While the award (Annexure P-5) specifically granting continuity of service to him, the respondent/Council seems to have taken an approach that unwarrantedly victimizes the petitioner. Additionally, the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II provide that the service rendered by an employee is deemed to be of a continuous nature, subject to the exceptions carved out therein”, it stated.

“This Court is constrained to observe that the conduct exhibited by the respondents is unbecoming of a public employer. The State and its instrumentalities, being model employers, are held up to higher standards and therefore, bear an additional responsibility to ensure that their actions are not perceived as arbitrary or violative of the constitutional philosophy”, it noted. Saying that it cannot condone the highly iniquitous arm-twisting tactics employed by the respondent/Council, the Bench allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.

The Bench thus held that the petitioner would be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits. “The respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order in this regard within 03 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order”, it directed.,

Cause Title: Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:135941)

Click here to read/download Order