The Punjab and Haryana High Court has flagged the absence of a clear policy for regularisation of long-serving contractual employees under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), now replaced by the VB-G RAM G Act. It has called upon the Centre to frame a comprehensive and humane regularisation policy. Asking the Centre to clarify its stand on the issue, Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that such workers had been left in a state of “uncertainty and insecurity” despite rendering service for long years against sanctioned posts.Taking up a writ petition filed by contractual accounts assistants engaged under MGNREGA, Justice Moudgil issued notice of motion and directed the Union of India to file an affidavit setting out the government’s position on the issue of regularisation.“This court is of the opinion that the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is a flagship welfare programme of the Government of India and it’s the effective implementation depends upon the dedicated services of personnel such as the petitioners who have been continuously working for long years against sanctioned posts,” Justice Moudgil asserted.The Bench added the workers had been left in a state of uncertainty and insecurity due to the absence of a clear policy for regularisation, despite their sustained contribution, experience and commitment in implementing the objectives of the scheme at the grassroots level.Justice Moudgil added the court found it imperative that the Union of India– being the nodal authority for the scheme – framed a comprehensive and humane policy for employees, who devoted the prime of their working lives to the execution of governmental programmes. This, the Bench added, was essential so that the workers were not left in the lurch.“Considerations of fairness, compassion and social justice demand that the state, as a model employer, addresses their legitimate expectations in a sympathetic manner, consistent with constitutional principles and the law laid down by the Supreme Court,” Justice Moudgil asserted.The petitioners before Justice Moudgil’s Bench were seeking directions for regularisation. Among other things, their counsel contended that the petitioners were appointed after a due and transparent selection process, possessed the requisite qualifications and had been continuously discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the authorities for more than ten years.Justice Moudgil’s Bench was also told that their claim for regularisation was squarely covered by the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of “Jaggo versus the Union of India and others”, which dealt with similarly situated contractual employees appointed against sanctioned posts.“Satya Pal Jain, senior advocate and Additional Solicitor-General of India, having been served with an advance copy of the petition, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Union of India is directed to file an affidavit setting out the government’s stand on the peculiar issue arising in this case,” Justice Moudgil observed. Haryana Additional Advocate-General, Deepak Balyan, also served with the petition’s copy, accepted notice on the respondent-State’s behalf before seeking time to obtain instructions and to file a written statement. The case will now come up for further hearing on February 9.