Ram Niwas v. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran & Ors.

Judgment

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-16) passed by respondent No.2 vide which the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to pay the regular pay scale of the post of Chowkidar and to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 2002 with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed against a sanctioned post of Chowkidar on

01.05.1996 in the office of respondent No. 3 on a daily wage basis. His services were subsequently terminated on 01.03.1997, which led to a

MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 2 labor dispute. Vide an award dated 01.03.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of the demand notice. Consequently, he was taken back into service on 14.06.2002 and he has been continuously working on the post of Chowkidar since then. The Government of Haryana issued various policies for regularization of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees working on daily wages, including policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent instructions dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) for regularization of left-over Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees working on daily wages/work charge basis. Consequently, the name of the petitioner was strongly recommended by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jind vide Memo No.3754 dated 11.09.2014; Memo No.1590 dated 16.03.2015 and Memo No.3069 dated 03.08.2016, for regularization, however, no final decision was taken on the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner served the respondents with the legal notice dated 05.02.2021, however, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure P-12).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has rendered uninterrupted service for more than 23 years after his reinstatement pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court and is entitled to regularization as per the policies dated

01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Government of Haryana. He further submits that the Estate Officer, MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 3 HSVP, Jind, had strongly recommended the petitioner’s name for regularization multiple times, specifically noting that he is the only Group D employee in that office serving since 01.05.1996 whose services require regularization. He further argues that similarly situated employees have already been regularized pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWP-11605-2016 titled as Jagdish vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, decided on 29.08.2018 along with the connected case, which was upheld in LPA-1254-2019 decided on

23.07.2019, and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim vide impugned order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-16) is arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner for regularization was considered but could not be finalized as the matter regarding the validity of the 2014 regularization policy is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.31566 of 2018, titled as State of Haryana vs Yogesh Tyagi and another. He further contends that the petitioner’s engagement was on a daily wage basis and, by following the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, the petitioner does not have a vested right to seek regularization.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 4 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 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 and recurring work of the concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.

7. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 speaking through Justice 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-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to 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 MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 5 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. Union 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-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as 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” 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 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 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-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 6 offends 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- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State keep and produce accurate Departments must 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 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 discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. 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 denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended 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’s case (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 7 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 Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-19238- 2013 decided on 26.02.2024.

9. In the present case, the petitioner has been serving the respondent/Department for nearly three decades. The perennial nature of his work is established by the recommendations of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Jind, who categorically stated that the services of the petitioner, as a hard-working and honest employee, are essentially required by the office as discernible from Memo No.3754 dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure P-9). The action of the respondents in rejecting his claim for regularization based on the pendency of litigation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court is untenable, especially when the petitioner has already been granted continuity of service by a competent Labour Court and has remained in service thereafter for over 23 years.

10. In the wake of above discussions and findings, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-16) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be deemed to be regularized. MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-7274-2026 8

11. The petitioner shall also be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.

12. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

11.03.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.03.12 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.