Jagdish Kum Kumar and others v. State of Punja Punjab and others

Judgment

1. The present writ petition has be has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India with a prayer for e writ er for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in th r in the nature of mandamus directing er and ecting the respondents to consider and to regularize larize the services of petitioners in earing rs in view of the resolution bearing 139/4 dated dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) .4- 3) passed by respondent No.4 Municipal C ipal Corporation, Rajpura as the resolution has been passed considering ering the petitioners on fulfilling t ation. lling the criteria for regularization. Further praye r prayed for regularizing the services ate of rvices of petitioners w.e.f. the date of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 2 their initial initial joining with the Municipal th all icipal Corporation along with all consequentia uential benefits. CONTENTI ENTIONS

Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were initially appointed in the y ntract the year 1996 as Peon on contract basis but the ut their services had been terminated inated in the year 2003. Vide award dated 11.12.2

11.12.2013, learned Industrial Tribun atiala Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala directed the d the respondents to reinstate petiti ity in petitioner No.1 with continuity in service but w but without back wages. Thereafter, s was eafter, contract of the petitioners was extended from ed from time to time. Petitioners No.2 ch till s No.2 and 4 are working as such till date, howeve owever, on contractual basis. Learned that in earned counsel further submits that in the year 201 ar 2016, the Government of Punjab unjab enacted a The Punjab Adhoc Contractual, ctual, Daily Wage, Temporary, W y, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees W yees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘A ch the after ‘Act of 2016’), as per which the temporary/co ary/contractual/work charge/outsource pleted tsource employee who had completed three years o ears of service were to be regulariz icipal gularized. The respondent-Municipal Council, Raj il, Rajpura had also adopted the Ac y the he Act of 2016, as directed by the Department o ment of Local Government, Punjab vi

6. The jab vide letter dated 28.12.2016. The respondent- -Corporation vide resolution date ed to n dated 04.01.2017 had resolved to proceed acco d according to the Act of 2016, w ection 016, without raising any objection regarding su ing such employees who fulfil the p e said the prescribed conditions. The said resolution ha ion has also been approved by the Go he Government of Punjab vide memo bearing N No.EB-4-DLG(Rajpura-205)-201 2017/11.51 .2017 08.03.2017 (Annexure P ure P-2). However, in spite of the fac the fact that the petitioners have been PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 3 working for g for over 26 years, the service of ice of the petitioners has not been regularized t ized till date. The petitioners have also served a legal notice dated

01.08.2019 (A 019 (Annexure P-7) and a reminder d ure P- inder dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P 8) but to no a to no avail.

3. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioners further submits that the claim of reg of regularization raised by similarly erving milarly situated employees, serving Municipal C ipal Corporation, Bathinda as Firem Fireman/Drivers has already been accepted in ed in CWP No. 11106 of 2021 titled vs. titled as Dev Singh and others vs. State of Pun Punjab and others. He further of the urther submits that the case of the petitioners is ners is also squarely covered by the jud urt in the judgments passed by this Court in CWP-2371- -2020 titled as Harbans Lal vs. St 019 vs. State of Punjab, LPA-1892-2019 titled as Stat State of Haryana and others vs. J 146- vs. Jai Bhagwan and CWP-10146 2023 titled a tled as Manjeet Singh and others vs. vs. State of Punjab and others.

4. Per contra, learned State coun rt the counsel is could not controvert the judgments ci nts cited by learned counsel for the at the r the petitioners but submits that the facts of the case of the petitioners are distingu istinguishable from Dev Singh’s case (supra). Lear Learned counsel further submits tha its that the Act of 2016 under which the petitioner titioners are claiming regularization h n by tion has already been withdrawn by the governm vernment, thus reliance upon the sam he same is misconceived. Lastly, h ly, he submits that s that petitioners No.1 and 3 have ge of have already attained the age of superannuatio nnuation and retired from service .2025, vice on 31.1.2023 and 31.07.2025 tively. respectively PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 4 OBSERVAT RVATION & ANALYSIS

5. Having heard the learned coun counsel for the parties and perused the record w with their able assistance, admitt dmittedly, the petitioners have been working in th g in the respondent-Corporation as P . This n as Peons since the year 1996. This Court has be has been constrained to observe a tre loyees e a trend where long term employees are engaged aged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the rvices of the perennial nature of the services rendered by ed by them. The State, being a cons ot be a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to e d to exploit its temporary employe ck of ployees under the garb of lack of sanctioned p ned posts or inability of the em tional e employees to meet educational qualifications cations for regular posts, when they ha ing its hey have been consistently serving its instrumentali entality for a significant time period ld be period. Such an approach would be violative of ve of fundamental rights of the temp ed in e temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 1 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of tion of India. Further still, temporary employees ca ees cannot be forced to bear the brun ources e brunt of lack of financial resources when the Sta he State had no qualms about contin of the continuously taking advantage of the services rend s rendered with regard to integral f the ntegral and recurring work of the concerned ned department. Reliance in this r n the this regard can be placed on the judgements r ents rendered by the Hon’ble Suprem n of upreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and oth d others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod K n of od Kumar and others vs. Union of India 2024 024 (1) SCR 1230 and Shripal an am, and another. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2 ad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.

6. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of urt in nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Sing Singh and Others v. State of U.P. a Line .P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 5 SC 1735, spe speaking through Justice Vikram in this ikram Nath, opined as follows in this regard: “11. Furthermore, it must be cl e clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Uma madevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike like Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation ation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. ate's ent. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction po n posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the pra) the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between ille illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not ot endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where th re the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to rs, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jag d in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, G , Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) pra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through l gh long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or th or the denial of basic parity wher identical duties are exacted The ted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein ap n apply with full force to the present case.... XXX XXX XXX

13. As we have observed in bo n both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot b d to ot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work i The rk is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contentio tention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but cont continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advan dvance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely ry of cisely because of the long history of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 6 engagement and the pendency ate's ncy of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates righ rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upo f the upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. XXX XXX XXX

17. Before concluding, we think t the think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere t a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It ca t cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform t rm the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work ork recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment m ent must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engage gagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour un r under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administr nistration and of ends the promise of equal protection. Financial s ial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a t ess, a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise nise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessar sm” ssarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is n is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate rate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrange lain, ngements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefe refer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work t” is work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should ld show what alternatives were considered, why similarly p y placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen 14, osen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of n of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged inse It is insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public o blic offices running.” PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 7

7. It also appears that both the Sta a tend he States of Punjab and Haryana tend lied) (Emphasis supplied) to formulate ulate policies in order to circumvent mvent implementation of judgements rendered by ed by the Constitutional Courts. Mor m for . More often than not, the claim for regularization ization is neither accepted nor denie ept in denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnec unnecessarily. The extended ad-ho hocism of keeping daily wage workers or c s or contractual employees on temp temporary rolls for decades while extracting reg ing regular work is not only unconstit uality onstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. T nity. The State and its instrumentalitie ntalities being model employer cannot perpetuate su ate such exploitation and use excuses s, non xcuses like financial constraints, non availability o ility of sanctioned post, and lack o ion in lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s ca i’s case (supra) as talisman to deny ion on deny well deserved regularisation on account of th t of the perennial nature of their lon eir long-term work at par with their counterparts rparts working on regular posts. Fu and 3 Further, petitioners No.1 and 3 cannot be de be denied the benefits of regularisati etired larisation merely because they retired during the pe the pendency of the present writ petiti rd can t petition. Reference in this regard can also be made made to the judgment rendered by urt in ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh ingh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 ch of 3) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in urt in State of Punjab and others vs HC s. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as we as well as a Co-ordinate bench in s vs. h in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punj Punjab and others in CWP-19238- -2013 decided on 26.02.2024.

8. In the wake of the above discu resent discussion and findings, the present petition is all allowed. The respondents are dire orders re directed to pass appropriate orders regularising ising the service of the petitioners wit within a period of six weeks from PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- -2022 8 the date of te of receipt of certified copy of er of py of this order. If no order of regularization ization is passed within the stipulated all be ulated period, the petitioners shall be deemed to b d to be regularized. The petitioners s ing of ners shall be entitled to counting of past service rvice and other benefits as per judgm urt in judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans La s Lal vs. State of Punjab, CWP N e of P No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, LPA N PA No.1892 of 2019.

9. All the pending miscellaneous a eous application(s), if any, shall stand ed of. disposed of. January 09 P.C 09, 2026 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document