P&H High Court Calls For 'Judgment Implementation Cells' To Track Compliance Of Orders In Service Matters

Observing that habitual delay and outright denial of rightful service benefits to employees, caused by bureaucratic red-tape and administrative indifference is one of the longstanding issues, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued slew of guidelines for the bureaucrats.

In the present case, the Court's conscience was “pricked” noting that the petitioner moved the Court 9th time seeking regularisation of his post despite a favourable order passed by the Court back in 2005.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, “A widespread problem in public institutions is the habitual administrative negligence, indifference, and deliberate delay in implementing court-mandated relief, particularly in service matters concerning employees. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the justice system and defeats the fundamental purpose of judicial adjudication. The delivery of judgments alone does not guarantee the credibility of the justice system. True justice is realized only when the administration acts promptly and effectively to enforce the decisions of the courts.”

The Court issued the following parameters to ensure timely and effective implementation of the decisions of the Courts:

1. Accountability & Responsibility - Each order must clearly specify the officer responsible for its implementation. In cases of delay, personal accountability should be recorded in the concerned officer's service record.

2. Statutory Time Limits - There should be mandatory timelines established for implementing service-related judgments, unless specifically stayed by a higher court. Failure to comply within this period must automatically trigger accountability

mechanisms.

3. Monitoring Mechanism - Every department should establish a centralized Judgment Implementation Cell tasked with tracking compliance. These cells must submit quarterly reports to department head for his appraisal and necessary action if required.

4. Digital Transparency Tools - The implementation status of court orders should be available on an online portal, providing transparency and allowing employees to monitor the progress of their cases. Further, there should be digitalization of service records to reduce procedural bottlenecks.

5. Pre-Litigation Grievance Redressal - Internal grievance mechanisms must be developed to allow employees to seek redressal before approaching the courts for matters already settled in law. This would reduce unnecessary litigation and lessen the burden on judicial bodies.

6. Training and Awareness - Regular capacity-building initiatives should be conducted to sensitize officers about the constitutional importance of implementing court orders, the rule of law, and the serious consequences of administrative indifference.

7. Performance Appraisals - Compliance with judicial directives should form a part of the measurable performance evaluation criteria in the annual appraisals of administrative officers.

Departments File Unwarranted Appeals To Delay Relief

The Court noted that despite clear legal provisions and judicial rulings, employees are frequently forced to endure prolonged litigation, often having to file multiple cases to obtain the relief they are entitled to. 

The situation is further aggravated by the routine passing of files from one officer to another without any accountability, resulting in unreasonable delays. Officers rarely comply with the timelines set by rules or court orders. Instead of addressing the matters on merit, many departments take an adversarial stance by filing unwarranted appeals, sometimes reaching the highest courts, solely to postpone the grant of relief, it added.

The Court said that, as a result, employees face mental anguish and financial uncertainty during these drawn-out legal proceedings.

These observations were made while hearing a petition challenging the order of Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. whereby petitioner's claim for regularisation of position was rejected.

State Can't Exploit Temporary Employees Under Garb Of Lack Of Posts

Justice Brar said that where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant time period. 

“Such an approach would be violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources when the State had no qualms about continuously taking advantage of the services rendered with regard to integral and recurring work of the concerned department,” it said.

While allowing the plea, the Court directed the Corporation to regularise the services of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized and they would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of aforesaid period, it added

Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate and

Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5

Title: Hari Ram and others v State of Haryana & Ors

Click here to read/download the order