Haryana High Court: State Must Be a Parent, Not a Punisher, to its Employees

You know, there are times when the courts step in not just to interpret the law, but to remind the government of its fundamental human responsibilities. And that’s precisely what happened recently with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which delivered a rather poignant message to the State of Haryana: treat your employees like a parent would, with care and fairness, especially when it comes to their careers.

Imagine, for a moment, being an employee who's worked diligently, climbed the ranks, only to hit a wall – a wall built from unresolved vigilance inquiries. It’s a frustrating scenario, to say the least, and one that Mr. Virender Singh, an official with the Haryana government, found himself entangled in for far too long. He started his career as a clerk, eventually becoming a senior assistant. But when it was time for his next big step, promotion to superintendent grade-II, the state held him back.

The reason? Those pesky vigilance inquiries. Here’s the kicker: Mr. Singh had already been acquitted in a criminal case way back in 2017. And the departmental inquiry? That was dropped in 2021. Yet, despite being cleared of all accusations, the lingering shadow of "pending vigilance inquiries" was used as a convenient excuse to deny him his rightful progression. Can you imagine the sheer injustice of it all?

This is where the High Court really put its foot down. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, presiding over the case, made it abundantly clear: the State, particularly when it comes to its workforce, must embody the principle of "parens patriae." What does that mean in plain English? Well, it essentially means the government should act as the ultimate parent, looking out for the welfare of its citizens, and by extension, its employees. It’s a powerful concept, really, reminding the state that it’s not just an employer, but a guardian.

The court didn't mince words when addressing the issue of protracted vigilance cases. It firmly stated that these inquiries cannot, and should not, hang over an employee's head indefinitely. There has to be a conclusion, a definitive outcome. Once an employee is acquitted or cleared, the past should be just that – the past. The state simply cannot use unresolved, stale inquiries as an eternal barrier to career advancement, effectively punishing someone even after they’ve been exonerated.

The ruling was a breath of fresh air for Mr. Singh, and indeed, for many others who might find themselves in similar predicaments. The court directed the Haryana government to consider him for promotion, along with all the consequential benefits, from the very date his juniors received theirs. And they gave the state a tight deadline: two months to get it done. It’s a clear message: swift justice, not delayed justice, is the expectation.

Ultimately, this isn't just about one employee's promotion; it's about a fundamental principle of governance. It’s a reminder that a state's relationship with its employees shouldn't be adversarial or dismissive, but rather, supportive and just. Because, after all, a parent's role is to nurture and facilitate growth, not to stifle it with endless, unproven suspicions.