Kuldeep Kum p Kumar v. State of Punja f Punjab and others
Case Details
CWP-6757- -2020 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 223 CW Dat CWP-6757-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.11.2025 Kuldeep Kum p Kumar .....Petitioner SUS VERSUS State of Punja f Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate w ocate cate with Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. unjab. Mr. T.P.S Walia, AAG, Punjab. Mr. M.S. Batth, Advocate for res for respondents No.2 and 3. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The instant civil writ petition rticles tition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of th 7 of the Constitution of India for issu ure of or issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari see seeking quashing of the order date ), er dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-14), vide which c hich claim of the petitioner for regula and regularization has been declined and further to issu to issue a writ in the nature of mandam nts to ndamus directing the respondents to regularize th ize the services of the petitioner o the ioner w.e.f. his induction into the respondents d dents department and to grant consequ m the nsequential benefits flowing from the same. 2.
Legal Reasoning
ed by this Court in Harbans Lal v. Sta 1 of . State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and Sta State of Haryana and others v. J 2 of v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 8. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand pplication(s), if any, shall also stand
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is is presently working as ‘Senior ndent- enior Assistant’ in the respondent department ent continuously since 2011. The pe ch till The petitioner is working as such till PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.10 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6757- -2020 2 today on con on contractual basis. The petitioner for oner filed various representations for regularisation isation of his services but same eeling same remained unheeded. Feeling aggrieved, th ed, the petitioner along with other urced other similarly situated outsourced employees s ees submitted a joint request to The t to regularize their services. The petitioner ha er has been working as a contractu han a ntractual employee for more than a decade and a and as such, the requirement of the w tioner f the work extracted by the petitioner is perennial i nnial in nature. Regardless of the sam eing a e same, the respondents even being a model emplo employer continues to keep the petitio yee. petitioner as a contractual employee. 3. Learned counsel for respondent the ondents No.2 and 3 submits that the claim for re for regularisation of the petitione d for titioners cannot be considered for regularization ization as he did not fulfill the conditi ars of ondition of completion of 10 years of service as on as on 01.01.2006. Further, the petiti rough petitioner was not engaged through the prescribe scribed procedure and therefore he is ion of he is not entitled to regularisation of service in ter in terms of Government Instructions as the ctions dated 14.11.2011 as well as the judgment ren nt rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme a v. preme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (20 i (2006) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel c ct that nsel could not controvert the fact that the petitioner itioner was neither engaged as a casu t time a casual labourer nor as a part time worker and and the work extracted from him nd is him is perennial in nature and is performing d ing duties at par with his regular c unsel gular counter-parts. Learned counsel further conte contends that the petitioner did not e work not even acquire the status of work charge or a or ad hoc employees and therefo t for therefore, has no vested right for regularisation isation. Further, the petitioner only be yee in nly became a contractual employee in 2016 before w efore which he was an outsourced emp ed employee. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.10 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6757- -2020 3 OBSERVAT RVATION & ANALYSIS 4. This Court has been constrained e long trained to observe a trend where long term employe ployees are engaged on ad hoc basis, nature basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the service services rendered by them. The State, b loyer, State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allo be allowed to exploit its temporary em f lack rary employees under the garb of lack of sanctione ctioned posts or inability of the em tional the 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 e of fundamental rights of the temp ed in e temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 1 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of orary tion of India. Further still, temporary employees ca ees cannot be forced to bear the brun urces 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 d 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 Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and ot d others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod n of nod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & An bad Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC On C OnLine SC 221. 5. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench o urt in ench 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 SC 1735 spea speaking through Justice Vikram Na am Nath has held as follows: “1 “11. Furthermore, it must be cl placed by the High Court on Uma pla the the appellants is misplaced. Unli ch challenge before us is not an constitutional scheme of public co e clarified that the reliance Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the an invitation to bypass the ublic employment. It is a PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.10 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6757- -2020 4 to ary refusals to sanction posts challenge to the State's arbitrary r ch cknowledgement of need and de despite the employer's own ackno e on the very workforce. On decades of continuous reliance on de Supra) draws a distinction the other hand, Umadevi (Supr the and irregular engagements be between illegal appointments and perpetuation of precarious and does not endorse the per an itself is permanent and the employment where the work itse em put its house in order. Recent Sta State has failed, for years, to put i go v. Union of India and in decisions of this Court in Jaggo de haziabad have emphatically Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghazi Sh ra) cannot be deployed as a cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) ca n long-term “ad through t shi justify exploitation shield g as a proxy, or the denial of hocism”, the use of outsourcing as ho l duties are exacted over ba basic parity where identical d les articulated therein apply ext extended periods. The principles ase.... with full force to the present case.. wi ** ** 13 13. As we have observed in bo Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cann Sh shi shield to perpetuate precariousn en engagement practices where th perennial. The Commission's fur per ap appellants are not “full-time” e on only by virtue of interim orders their case. That interim protectio the bec because of the long history o pen pendency of the challenge to neither creates rights that did ne entitlements that may arise upon en the the legality of those refusals. ** ** ** ** in both Jaggo (Supra) and cannot become a convenient ousness and to sidestep fair re the work is inherently s further contention that the e” employees but continue ders also does not advance ection was granted precisely ry of engagement and the to the State's refusals. It did not exist nor erases pon a proper adjudication of ** 17 17. Before concluding, we think i the State (here referring to both the governments) is not a mere m go con constitutional employer. It canno backs of those who perform the m ba public functions. Where work re pu yea year after year, the establishment in in its sanctioned strength and en long-term extraction of regular lon lab labels corrodes confidence in pub en ends the promise of equal protect certainly has a place in public cer tal talisman that overrides fairness, org organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessar 18 ink it necessary to recall that oth the Union and the State e market participant but a nnot balance budgets on the the most basic and recurring rk recurs day after day and ment must reflect that reality d engagement practices. The lar labour under temporary public administration and of otection. Financial stringency blic policy, but it is not a ess, reason and the duty to ssarily be noted that “ad- PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.10 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6757- -2020 5 keep hocism” thrives where administra ho and an De Departments must establishment registers, muster est arrangements, and they must exp arr the they prefer precarious engageme where the work is perennial. If “c wh record should show what alternati rec sim similarly placed workers were tre the chosen course aligns with Arti the India. Sensi Constitution of Co co consequences of prolonged insecu It It is a constitutional discipline t decision af ecting those who keep de (Emphasis supplied) (Em istration is opaque. The State accurate produce ster rolls and outsourcing explain, with evidence, why ement over sanctioned posts f “constraint” is invoked, the natives were considered, why e treated dif erently, and how Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the the human ensitivity security is not sentimentality. ne that should inform every keep public of ices running.” to 6. It also appears that both the Sta a tend he States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate ulate policies in order to circumvent ments 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 wage hocism of keeping daily wage workers or c s or contractual employees on temp while temporary rolls for decades while extracting reg ing regular work is not only unconstit uality onstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. nity. The State and its instrumentalit can’t entalities being model employer can’t perpetuate su ate such exploitation and use excuses s, non xcuses like financial constraints, non availability o ility of sanctioned post, and lack of q tate k of qualification or decision in State of Karnatak ataka v. Umadevi (supra) as tal erved as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation isation on account of their perennial n ork at nial nature of long periods of work at par with the h their counterparts working on re n this on regular posts. Reference in this regard can al can also be made to the judgment ren preme ent rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nih Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, ( vision ab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of thi of this Court in State of Punjab and 025 and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.10 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6757- -2020 6 NCPHHC 65 C 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate and inate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. S s. State of Punjab and others in on in CWP-19238-2013 decided on . 26.02.2024 7. In the wake of above discussion t is of cussion and findings, this Court is of the considere sidered opinion that the present petit and t petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly t ingly the same is allowed. The respon larize respondents are directed to regularize the services o vices of the petitioner within six week copy weeks of receiving the certified copy of this order order. If no order of regularization ulated ation is passed within the stipulated time the petit e petitioner shall be deemed to be reg all be be regularized. The petitioner shall be entitled to c to counting of past service and ot ments and other benefits as per judgments rendered by t
Decision
ed of. disposed of. 19.11.2025 P.C 025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.12.10 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document