Holding it as “illegal”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the Haryana government’s decision to re-employ former Haryana Civil Services (HCS) officer Bir Singh for an additional six months after his retirement as the managing director of the Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited.
In the decision passed Friday, Justice Augustine George Masih said that since Singh has already completed the term of six months, the court would not order recovery of the financial benefits, which have been earned by him during the period “on the principle of him having worked on the post of managing director albeit without the authority of law” but has also ruled that “he would not be entitled to any benefit for future”.
On the recommendation of the Haryana’s minister of state for cooperation, the Council of Ministers ex-post facto in September 2018 had approved the re-employment of Singh from May 2018 to October 2018. The decision was challenged by a farmer, Rohtas Singh, in July 2018. Rohtas Singh cultivates sugarcane on land assigned to the sugar mill and is a shareholder too. The main ground, he contended, was that Singh was no more an HCS officer and could not have been granted an extension.
In the reasons for the re-employment, the minister had said the project for shifting the sugar mill to a new site was in progress and Singh was handling the project since the beginning. Justice Masih in the order said there was a justifiable reason, which can be termed to be in public interest as also under exception circumstances.
However, Justice Masih, in the same verdict, said the question was whether Singh continued to remain a HCS officer, which happens to be the basic requirement for appointment as the managing director; adding the government order clearly spells out that it was not an extension but re-employment meaning that he was not an HCS officer after April 30, 2018.
Though the counsel representing Singh argued that as per the law any person having professional qualification and experience can also be employed on the post, Justice Masih in the verdict said but “it is not even mentioned as to what is the professional qualification of the respondent which has to be in addition to experience…”.
