In a huge relief to thousands of contractual employees in Haryana absorbed in regular service under the 2014 Regularisation Policy, the Supreme Court has allowed them to continue in service as it declared two of the three notifications to be valid.“It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the (Punjab and Haryana) High Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside,” a Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S Chandurkar said.“The intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs flowing from such declaration, subject to verification by the competent authority,” it said in its April 16 verdict.The top court struck down the two notifications dated July 7, 2014 issued to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with the State of Haryana, declaring them “arbitrary and illegal”.However, in the peculiar facts of the case, it said, “the Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees, who have secured benefit of these Notifications and who continue in service shall not be disturbed.”Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Chandurkar modified the high court’s judgment and ordered them to be placed in the lowest pay scale of the post held by them.The Bench extended the benefit to similarly placed intervenors. “The intervenors, who are similarly placed as those Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc employees, who are presently in service in view of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 shall also be entitled to the reliefs as referred to above, subject to verification by the competent authority,” it said.The employees, who had approached the High Court and were granted liberty to take steps after the present appeals were decided, were free to take appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment, it clarified.The Bench appreciated the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae and senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta in resolving the issues raised in the matter.The verdict came on petitions challenging the May 31, 2018 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the policy decisions of the General Administration Department of the State of Haryana dated June 16, 2014, June 18, 2014 and July 07, 2014 seeking to regularise the services of various contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees in Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’.The Haryana Government issued a notification dated 29, 07, 2011 seeking to regularise as a ‘one time measure’ the services of employees, who had worked for not less than 10 years as on April 10, 2006 and were continued in service without the aid of any interim order passed by any Tribunal or Court.On June 16, 2014 another notification was issued proposing to regularise the services of Group ‘B’ employees working on contractual basis, who were in service as on May 28, 2014 and had been working for not less than three years on that date. It was stated that it was a ‘one time measure’ on humanitarian ground and that in future no such appointments would be made against sanctioned posts.Subsequently, on June 18, 2014 another notification was issued with regards to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with a similar dateline to regularise their services.Thereafter, on July 7, 2014, another notification seeking to regularise ‘one time measure’ on humanitarian ground the services of Group ‘B’ employees who had or would complete 10 years’ service on December 31, 2018 was issued. On the same day, another notification was issued with regard to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees with a similar dateline.There were two sets of petitions before the high court – one challenging the notifications and the other by those working on ad hoc basis seeking regularisation.In its May 31, 2018 judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the impugned notifications to be “bad in law” inasmuch as they had the effect of violating the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its various decisions on regularisation of services of contractual/ad hoc/daily wage employees.The high court held that failure to resort to regular mode of recruitment after the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs Umadevi and others (2006) could not be treated as an administrative exigency.The advertisements issued had invited applications for appointment on a contractual basis. As a result, it was likely that candidates, who were interested in regular recruitment but not on contractual basis may not have applied pursuant to the same and that no special circumstances were pointed out to bypass the regular mode of recruitment, the high court held.Quashing the notifications dated June 16, 2014, June 18, 2014 and two notifications dated July 7, 2014, the high court directed that any benefit granted to any employee would stand withdrawn.However, noting that such appointments had been made to undertake work in various departments, the high court had directed that the appointees be allowed to continue on the said posts for a period of six months from the date of the judgment, during which period the State of Haryana was directed to ensure that vacant sanctioned posts would be advertised and the process of selection would be completed.While allowing petitions challenging the notifications and dismissing those seeking regularisation in service, the high court had also directed that the appointees be given the benefit of age relaxation to enable them to participate in the fresh process of recruitment in terms of its directions.