High Court · 2026

the temporary employees enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Consti- tution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments ren- dered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union MONIKA VERMA 2026.04.10 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:16) (cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:23) (cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:3) of India (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Furthermore, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, speaking through Justice Vikram Nath, has made the following observations in this regard: “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is mis- placed. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an in- vitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts de- spite 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. 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 de- nial 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 pre- cariousness 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 in- terim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's re- fusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitle- ments 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 MONIKA VERMA 2026.04.10 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:16) (cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:23) (cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:3) and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term ex- traction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confi- dence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public pol- icy, 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 Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and out- sourcing 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 conse- quences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitu- tional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment ren- dered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. 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. Additionally, the case of the peti- tioners is also squarely covered by Kartar Singh (supra) and Bhupesh Singh (supra).

7. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)((cid:14)(cid:20)!(cid:3)(cid:2))(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:12) (cid:10)(cid:20)!(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:20)"(cid:2)(cid:3)((cid:14)(cid:20)!(cid:3)(cid:2))(cid:31)(cid:5)with a di- rection to the respondent/competent authority to regularize the services of the petitioner within 06 weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within 06 weeks from today, the petitioner shall be deemed to be reg- ularized. MONIKA VERMA 2026.04.10 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:16) (cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:2)(cid:23) (cid:3).(cid:3) <(cid:17)(cid:12) (cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:8) (cid:12) 1(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:31)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:16) (cid:12) (cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:31)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:2)3(cid:16)4(cid:28) (cid:12) (cid:1)(cid:22) (cid:12) (cid:4)(cid:2)0(cid:28) (cid:12) (cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:9) (cid:12) (cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:16) (cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:9)(cid:22)(cid:17) (cid:6)(cid:7)-(cid:6)(cid:19)-(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:7). 3((cid:13)(cid:12)4(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:27)"(cid:31)(cid:10)(cid:31)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:11)1(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:27)(cid:11)#(cid:31)"(cid:31)(cid:23) (cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5)(cid:5) (cid:5)!(cid:30)$(cid:29)(cid:28)(cid:11) A(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:15)(cid:4)%(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:12)!(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)’(cid:9) (cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:12)!(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)’(cid:9) A(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:12) MONIKA VERMA 2026.04.10 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment chandigarh