Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 January, 2026
1
CWP-3214--2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 CWP-3214
3214-2022
Date of Decision: January 09, 2026
Jagdish Kumar and others
.....Petitioners
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present : Mr. P.S Jammu with Mr. Gaurav Luhani and Ms. Muskan,
Muskan
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab
Punjab.
Mr. D.S Randhawa,, Advocate for respondent
respondents No.4.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and to regularize the services of petitioners petitioners in view of the resolution bearing 139/4 dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) P 3) passed by respondent N No.4 .4- Municipal Corporation, Rajpura as the resolution has been passed considering the petitioners on fulfilling the criteria for regularization. Further prayed prayed for regularizing the services of petitioners w.e.f. the date of 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:27 ::: 2 CWP-3214--2022 their initial joining with the Municipal Corporation along with all consequential benefits.
CONTENTIONS
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia,, contends that the petitioners were ere initially appointed in the year 1996 as Peon on contract basis but their services had been terminated in the year 2003. Vide award dated 11.12.2013, learned Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala directed the respondents to reinstate petitioner No.1 with continuity in service but without back wages. Thereafter, contract of the petitioners was extended from time to time. Petitioners No.2 and 4 are working as such till date, however, on contractual basis. Learned counsel further submits that in the year 2016, the Government of Punjab enacted a The Punjab Adhoc Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter 'Act of 2016'), as per which the temporary/contractual/work charge/outsource employee w who ho had completed three years of service were to be regularized. The respondent respondent-Municipal Municipal Council, Rajpura had also adopted the Act of 2016, as directed by the Department of Local Government, Punjab vide letter dated 28.12.2016. The respondent--Corporation vide ide resolution dated 04.01.2017 had resolved to proceed according to the Act of 2016, without raising any objection regarding such employees who fulfil the prescribed conditions. The said resolution has also been approved by the Government of Punjab vide m memo emo bearing No.EB No.EB-4-DLG(Rajpura-205)-2017/11.51 2017/11.51 dated 08.03.2017 (Annexure P-2).
P 2). However, in spite of the fact that the petitioners have been 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 ::: 3 CWP-3214--2022 working for over 26 years, the service of the petitioners has not been regularized till date. The petitioners have also served a legal notice dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure P-7) P 7) and a reminder dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P-
P
8) but to no avail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the claim of regularization raised by similarly situated employees, serving Municipal Corporation, Bathinda as Fireman/Drivers has already been accepted in CWP No. 11106 of 2021 titled as Dev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others. He further sub submits mits that the case of the petitioners is also squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in CWP-2371--2020 titled as Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab, LPA LPA-1892-2019 2019 titled as State of Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan and CWP-10146 10146- 2023 titled as a Manjeet Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others.
4. Per contra,, learned State counsel is could not controvert the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners but submits that the facts of the case of the petitioners are distinguishable from Dev Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel further submits that the Act of 2016 under which the petitioners are claiming regularization has already been withdrawn by the government, thus reliance upon the same is misconceived. Lastly, he h submits that petitioners p No.1 and 3 have already attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.1.2023 and 31.07.2025, 31.07.2025 respectively respectively.
3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 ::: 4 CWP-3214--2022 OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance, assistance admittedly, dmittedly, the petitioners have been working in the respondent-Corporation respondent Corporation as Peons since the year 1996.. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad 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 employees 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 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of In India.
dia. 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 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 vs.. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others vvs.
s. Union of India 2024 (1) SCR 1230 and Shripal and another another. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.
6. Recently, a two-Judge Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 ::: 5 CWP-3214--2022 SC 1735, speaking through Justice Vikram Nath Nath,, opined as follows in this regard:
"11.
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non non-suit suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of publicc employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (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. Unio Unionn of India 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 term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where wher identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case....
XXX XXX XXX
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenien convenientt 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"
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 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 ::: 6 CWP-3214--2022 engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise rise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
XXX XXX XXX
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) 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 that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long long-term term extraction of regular labour under temporary 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"
hocism"
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishmen establishmentt 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 similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional titutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running."
6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 ::: 7 CWP-3214--2022 (Emphasis supplied)
7. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation ooff judgements rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism ad hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees 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 cannot perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi's case (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of the perennial nature of their long long-term term work at par with their counterparts working wor on regular posts. Further, petitioners No.1 and 3 cannot be denied the benefits of regularisation merely because they retired during the pendency of the present writ petition. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the H Hon'ble on'ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh vs. 65,, a Division Bench of v . State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 this Court in State of Punjab and others vss.. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate Co ordinate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. oth in CWP-19238--2013 decided on 26.02.2024. State of Punjab and others
8. In the wake of the above discussion and findings, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders regularising the service of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 ::: 8 CWP-3214--2022 the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in v . State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Harbans Lal vs. Haryana and others vs. v . Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019 2019.
9. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any any,, shall stand disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE January 09, 09 2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 14-01-2026 00:44:28 :::