Date o State of Punja f Punjab and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-17035 035-2013 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 206 Ram Asra CWP-17035 of 2013(O&M) CWP Date of Decision: October 29, 2025 Date o State of Punja f Punjab and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for th e for the petitioner. unjab. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Aman Sharma and Mr. respondents No.3 and 4. e for Mr. Chirag Soni, Advocate for **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has be 6/227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India with a prayer for nature er for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamu amus for directing the respondents ces of ndents to regularize the services of petitioner, wh er, who is working for the last 19 yea daily 19 years with the respondents as daily wager emplo employee. Further, praying for direct uring directing the respondents that during the pendency
Decision
dency of the writ petition, he be paid ts e paid the equal pay with all benefits being paid/g paid/granted to regular employees f e day yees for equal work since the day petitioner wa er was with the respondents and also of the d also staying the termination of the service of pet of petitioner. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17035 035-2013 2 2. Learned counsel for the petiti s that petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner wa er was initially appointed as Chowk wage Chowkidar/Watchmen on daily wage basis on 06.1 n 06.12.1994 in Punjab State Civil Su . He ivil Supplies Corporation, Ropar. He had been co en continuously performing duties s es the uties since 1994 which fortifies the claim of the p f the petitioner for regularization. He tioner He further contends that petitioner is entitled to led to be regularized in terms of the re ctions f the regularization policy/instructions dated 23.01. 23.01.2001 issued by Government o es for ent of Punjab, which provides for regularization ization on completion of 3 years o urther ears of service and it was further provided that ed that those daily wagers and others o had others category of workers who had completed th three years of service were to be se the to be regularization and in case the services of su s of such employees is not required, th inated ired, their services may be terminated by following owing the due process of law. The se as not The services of the petitioner was not dispensed wi sed with in terms of the policy which as he which clearly fortifies his case, as he has rendered dered continuous service which is pere is perennial in nature. 3. The claim of the petitioner is als ed for r is also required to be considered for regularization ization in terms of the judgment rende Court t rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of K of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 20 vi, 2006(3) SLR 1, as petitioner has er has rendered mor ed more than 10 years of service. Af ent in ce. After passing of the judgment in Uma Devi’s ’s case (supra) another instruction assed, uctions dated 15.12.2006 was passed, pursuant to w nt to which a large number of emplo stand employees of the Corporation stand regularized. ized. Further an identical issue issue in terms of icable the applicable regularization ization policy was raised before th 014, ore this Court in CWP-1933-2014 Kanta Rani ani Versus State of Punjab and o .2014, nd others, decided on 28.10.2014, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17035 035-2013 3 wherein this n this Court has ordered the services to be rvices of the petitioner therein to be regularized in ized in terms of instructions/policy of icy of 1999 and 2001. 4. Learned counsel placed furthe gment further reliance upon the judgment rendered by t ed by the Division Bench of this Cour and s Court in LPA Nos. 95 of 2019 and other connec nnected matters (O&M) Punjab Sta and b State Power Corporation Ltd. and others Versu ersus Surinder Singh and others 2 and thers, decided on 23.12.2022 and submits that s that even the part-time employees w a day yees working for few hours in a day have been r een regularized in terms of policy ndent- policy of 1999 and the respondent Corporation h ation has not controverted the fact tha filled act that in any manner they have filled 25% vacanci acancies in terms of policy of 1999. preme 1999. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nih Nihal Singh Versus State of Punja C 65 unjab and others, 2013(14) SCC 65 has authorita thoritatively held that employer has ise in r has not carried out the exercise in compliance o ance of the directions in Uma Devi’s im of evi’s case (supra)and the claim of such employ mployees for regularization cannot be itioner not be denied. Further the petitioner fulfils the eli the eligibility set out in every policy, h ng the olicy, however, in spite of serving the respondent- -Corporation since 1994, the se s not the services of petitioner was not regularized. S ized. Similarly situated employees of ached ees of the petitioners have approached this Court in urt in CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj a oad Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road Transport C rt Corporation and another, decid WP- decided on 03.09.2025 and CWP 1968-2012, S 12, Sant Ram and others Versus ers, rsus State of Punjab and others decided on d on 02.09.2025. This Court has al ns by has allowed their writ petitions by holding that i g that in the absence of sanctioned pos retext ed posts it cannot be used as a pretext to deny the y the regularization by relying upon Judge upon the judgment of a Two Judge PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17035 035-2013 4 Bench of Ho of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo V NSC o Vs. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 and ord nd ordered the regularization of simi of the f similarly situated employees of the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel f ration nsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that s that petitioner has tried to misgui tailed misguide by not giving the detailed information a ation about his past service at PUNSU show NSUP Ropar and also failed to show the actual da tual date of his joining as Chowkid urther owkidar as daily wager. He further submits that s that only those daily wagers were co who ere considered for regularization who had complet ompleted minimum 10 years of se and of service as on 10.04.2006 and petitioner’s 1 er’s 10 years tenure as daily wager co at that ger could not be regularized as at that time he had e had not completed his 10 years of s ld not rs of service. However, he could not controvert the ert the fact that petitioner has rendere ch are ndered continuous services which are perennial in n ial in nature. 6. I have heard the learned counsel ed the ounsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. 7. It transpires that the petitioner e year tioner joined the service in the year 1994 and has has rendered continuous service for ice for decades. 8. A Two Judge bench of the Ho ram Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Singh v. Sta . State of U.P 2025 INSC 998 spe ikram speaking through Justice Vikram Nath made th ade the following observations, "17. B (here r a mere balanc and re 7. Before concluding, we think it ne ere referring to both the Union and mere market participant but a con lance budgets on the backs of thos d recurring public functions. Where it necessary to recall that the State tate not and the State governments) is not constitutional employer. It cannot nnot those who perform the most basic asic and here work recurs day after day and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17035 035-2013 5 year a sanctio extract confid protect policy, duty to 18. Mo where and p outsou why th the wo show worker with A the hum It is a affectin its nt must reflect that reality in its ar after year, the establishment m term gement practices. The long-term nctioned strength and engageme under temporary labels corrodes odes traction of regular labour unde ion and ends the promise of equal qual nfidence in public administration a blic certainly has a place in public otection. Financial stringency cer the t overrides fairness, reason and the licy, but it is not a talisman that ove nes. ty to organise work on lawful lines. ives be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives . Moreover, it must necessarily be The State Departments must keep keep ere administration is opaque. The ment registers, muster rolls and and d produce accurate establishmen e, they must explain, with evidence, tsourcing arrangements, and they ement over sanctioned posts where here hy they prefer precarious engageme aint" is invoked, the record should ould e work is perennial. If "constraint" aced considered, why similarly placed ow what alternatives were cons ,and how the chosen course aligns igns rkers were treated differently ,and Constitution of India. Sensitivity to ty to th Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Con lity. ged insecurity is not sentimentality. e human consequences of prolonged sion that should inform every decision is a constitutional discipline that ices running." fecting those who keep public offices dded) (emphasis added) 9. The State, as a model employer xploit ployer, cannot be permitted to exploit employees b ees by keeping them in temporary p then orary positions for decades and then deny them re em regularization. This amounts to a les 14 ts to a blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the of the Constitution. The petitioner's d s that ner's duration of work showcases that the requirem uirement was continuous and perenn model perennial in nature. State as a model employer sho er should be welfare oriented and no ioners nd not have exploited the petitioners by extracting acting duties perennial in nature witho pt and without providing them with apt and suitable appo e appointments. 10. Reliance in this regard has bee arned as been aptly placed by the learned counsel for t l for the petitioner on judgements re WP- rendered by this court in CWP 12211-2021, 021, Hans Raj and others Ver port Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation tion and another, decided on 03. 012, n 03.09.2025 and CWP-1968-2012, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17035 035-2013 6 Sant Ram a m and others Versus State of Pu ed on f Punjab and others, decided on 025. 02.09.2025. 11. In view of the above discussi ner is iscussion the Claim of petitioner is squarely cov ly covered by afore-cited judgme is dgments. The present petition is accordingly ingly allowed. The respondents are at the ts are directed to ensure that the petitioner is is regularised within six weeks eeks from the date of receipt of t of a certified copy d copy of this order by the competent tioner petent authorities. If not the petitioner shall be deem e deemed to be regularised on the exp , even he expiry of six weeks. Further, even if the petition etitioner is retired he cannot be denie ation. denied the benefits of regularisation. The petitione titioner shall be entitled to counting of nefits ting of past service and other benefits as per judgm judgments of this Court in Harbans WP bans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2 of 2010 and State of Haryana and LPA and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2 of 2019. 12. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands ed of. disposed of. October 29 P.C 29, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document