Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2025
1
CWP-23484
23484-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
CWP-23484-2023
Reserved on:27.10.2025
Pronounced on
on: November 11,, 2025
Ramesh Kumar
....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG Haryana. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 8. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, BRAR J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents No.1 No.1 to 8 to count/consider the daily wage service period of the petitioner i.e. 01.03.1997 to 14.09.2014, towards qualifying regular service and grant regularisation of services as well as all benefits arising therefrom with effect from the date of joining joining- 01.03.1997.
1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:24 ::: 2 CWP-23484 23484-2023
2. Briefly, the facts are that the on 16.12.1996, the municipal employees across the state of Haryana declared a strike resulting in accumulation of huge heaps of waste on the roads and other places. During this period of emergency, the petitioner petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 01.03.1997 on daily wages. On 04.03.1997, the strike was called off yet the petitioner continued working on cleaning of the heaps of waste. On 20.03.1997, the appointment of the petitioner was also confirmed (Annexure P-2).
2). However, he was not granted regularisation for a considerable period of time even though vacant posts were available. He ultimately joined as a regular employee on 15.09.2014 (Annexure P P-24)
24) while he became eligible for the same from the date of his initial initial appointment i.e. 01.03.1997. While the counterparts of the petitioner were regularised and given the appropriate benefits, the petitioner has been discriminated against and passed over for no apparent reason. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that most other employees who were appointed during the strike were regularised and the petitioner is being discriminated against. While the petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1997, his name finds mention only in the list of 2014 (Annexure P-5).
P Further, on 13.05.1997 (Annexure P
P-3),
3), the Financial
Commissioner cum Secretary to the Government, Local Government Department issued a communication that adhoc employees recruited during the strike be adjusted against against available vacancies and if there are no vacancies, a seniority list be made and they be adjusted on future vacancies 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 3 CWP-23484 23484-2023 on priority basis. However, the petitioner was kept working with delayed payment of daily wages for many years. In fact, the Executiv Executivee Officer, Municipal Council, Gurugram also wrote a letter dated 04.11.1997 (Annexure P-11) P 11) to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram to allow a sanctioned post and regularisation of the petitioner in view of the commendable service rendered by him during the eemergency mergency strike period.
It was further clarified vide letter dated 16.10.1998 that the salary of the petitioner was to be made through the vacant post which had a salary equal to that of the post of a Tractor Driver. As such, it is clear that the petitioner petitione was not regularised in spite of the fact that a vacant post was present. Learned counsel further submitted that vide letter dated 19.11.2008, the petitioner informed the concerned authority that two posts had fallen vacant due to death of two employees and requested that he be regularised against them. However, owing to reasons best known to the respondents, the petitioner was repeatedly passed over for regularisation in spite of his name being recommended vide letter dated 16.10.2006 by the Deputy Commissioner, ssioner, Gurgaon. When the petitioner had rendered his services on a daily wage basis for 17 years and 6 months, he was offered appointment vide letter dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure P-23), P 23), however, the benefits of the same did not accrue from the date he beca became me eligible for regularisation.
Moreover, the petitioner was also denied his first ACP when he became eligible for the same on 15.09.2022 after completing 08 years of regular service.
3 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 4 CWP-23484 23484-2023
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 submitted that that a Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others 2018(3) SCT 181 has opined that the well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 was a one- time measure and was not meant to continue in perpetuity. It was also held that various policies introduced for regularisation of adhoc employees, which provide for retrospective cut off dates, are not legally justified. Further, the services of the petitioner already stand regularised on 15.09.2014. As such, the petitioner cannot claim that his services rendered as a daily wage worker from 01.03.1997 to 14.09.2014 to be counted towards regular service, as a matter of right.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner joined service at the time of emergency where the regular municipal employees had declared a strike. The petitioner had been working as as a Driver from 01.03.1997 till his retirement on 31.05.2023. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon vide letter dated 13.10.1997, issued directions that the salary of the petitioner be drawn against any post lying vacant with the Municipal Council, il, which clarifies that a vacant post was indeed available since the very beginning. Further still, in spite of repeated correspondence regarding regularisation of the petitioner as well as issuance of notification dated 01.10.2003 by the Government of Haryana, Haryana, whereby adhoc employees who had rendered at least three years of service were directed to be regularised, 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 5 CWP-23484 23484-2023 the petitioner was only regualrised on 15.09.2014. In the interim, the petitioner made multiple representations and also pointed out the avail availability ability of the of two posts due to death of two other employees vide representation dated 19.11.2008, however to no avail.
6. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not meet the criterion for regularisation or that there was an abs absence ence of sanctioned posts. The The claim of the petitioner for regularisation from the date he was first appointed i.e. on 01.03.1997 has been opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 only in view of the stance taken by a Division Bench of this Court Cou in Yogesh Tyagi (supra). While the Division Bench held that Umadevi(supra) was supposed to be a one one-time time measure, the subsequent pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 22 and Dharam Singh and 1735 paint a Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 173 different picture.
7. Recently, a two-Judge Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (supra), speaking through Jus Dharam Singh (supra), Justice tice Vikram Nath, has held as follows:
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to byp bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 6 CWP-23484 23484-2023 decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevii (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India Recent and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long long-
term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing aas a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case....
** ** **
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time"
"full time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that di did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
** ** **
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect th that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long term extraction of regular labour under temporary long-term labels corrodes confidence in public administration and of ends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad "ad- hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 7 CWP-23484 23484-2023 Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why record similarly placed workers were treated dif erently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecuri insecurity is not sentimentality.
It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public of ices running."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term erm employees are a engaged on adhoc 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 em employees ployees 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 cle 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 integral and recurring work of the concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kumar and others vs. v . Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 8 CWP-23484 23484-2023 Shripal (supra).
9. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denie denied d and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism ad hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer can't perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nihal 65, a Division Bench of this Singh vs.. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 Court in State of Punjab and others vs. v . Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate Co ordinate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-19238--2013 decided on 26.02.2024.
10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have unfairly and unjustifiably held back the benefits of regularisation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 ::: 9 CWP-23484 23484-2023 present petition is allowed. The respondents respondents/competent authority are directed to consider the date of regularisation of services of the petitioner to be the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.03.1997 01.03.1997.. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and oth other er benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal vs.. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others vvs.. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November 11, 11 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 9 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 14-11-2025 01:54:25 :::