Surinder Sing er Singh SUS v. Pepsu Road T Road Transport Corporation and anoth another
Case Details
CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 360(2 cases) cases) Date of Decision: October 08, 2025 Date o 1. Surinder Sing er Singh SUS VERSUS Pepsu Road T Road Transport Corporation and anoth another 2. Rajinder Pars er Parshad SUS VERSUS Pepsu Road T Road Transport Corporation and anoth another CWP-3831 of 2016 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CWP-11133 of 2019 itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Amit Kaith, Advocate for 3831- te for the petitioner in CWP-3831 2016.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in urt in CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj a oad Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 5 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 Two Judge Bench of Ho of Hon9ble Supreme Court in Jaggo V NSC ggo Vs. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 and ord ordered the regularization of simi of the f similarly situated employees of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel f ration nsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that s that the policy of 1999 and 2001 is resent 01 is totally misplaced in the present case, as the s the petitioner had retired on 31.1 ervice 31.10.2019 and during his service period, he ne , he never sought his regularization. rovert ation. However, could not controvert the fact that t that petitioner has rendered continuo nature ontinuous service, perennial in nature and had alre d already been granted the minimum .2004. inimum pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.2004. Further, the r, the counsel could not controvert r had trovert the fact that petitioner had approached t ched this Court by way of filing CWP liance g CWP-2984-2003 and in compliance thereof speak speaking order was passed to the of the o the effect that the services of the petitioner sha er shall also be regularized as and wh ms of and when vacancies arises in terms of policy dated 2 dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-12). 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for t at the el for the petitioner(s) submits that the stand taken b aken by the respondent-Corporation as is ation is contrary to the records as is discernible fr ible from Annexure P-7, vide which it names hich it is clearly indicating the names of employees loyees who have been appointed in th been d in the year 1984 onwards have been PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 6 regularized, w ized, whereas petitioner-Sh. Rajinder ervice jinder Parshad has joined the service on 01.05.198 05.1982 and petitioner-Sh. Surinder Si much der Singh in the year 1979 i.e. much prior to 1984 1984, have not been regularized. 8. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. 9. It transpires that the petitioner N 9 and ioner No.1 joined service in 1979 and petitioner N er No.2 joined on 01.05.1982 an uous, 82 and have rendered continuous, perennial ser ial service for decades following wh ed on ng which Petitioner No.2 retired on 31.10.2019 w 019 while the petitioner 1 is still in se ll in service. 10. A Two Judge bench of the Ap h v. he Apex Court in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P U.P 2025 INSC 998 speaking throu made g through Justice Vikram Nath made the following lowing observations, "17. B (here r a mere balanc and re year a sanctio extract confid protect policy, duty to 18. Mo where and p outsou why th the wo show worker with A 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 ar after year, the establishment m nctioned strength and engageme traction of regular labour unde nfidence in public administration a otection. Financial stringency cer licy, but it is not a talisman that ove s. ty to organise work on lawful lines. . Moreover, it must necessarily be ere administration is opaque. The d produce accurate establishmen tsourcing arrangements, and they hy they prefer precarious engageme e work is perennial. If "constraint" ow what alternatives were cons rkers were treated differently ,and th Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Con it necessary to recall that the State tate not and the State governments) is not nnot constitutional employer. It cannot those who perform the most basic asic and here work recurs day after day and its nt must reflect that reality in its gement practices. The long-term term under temporary labels corrodes odes qual ion and ends the promise of equal certainly has a place in public blic the t overrides fairness, reason and the be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives ives The State Departments must keep keep and ment registers, muster rolls and they must explain, with evidence, nce, ement over sanctioned posts where here ould aint" is invoked, the record should considered, why similarly placed aced ,and how the chosen course aligns igns ty to Constitution of India. Sensitivity to PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 7 the hum It is a affectin e human consequences of prolonged is a constitutional discipline that fecting those who keep public offices ged insecurity is not sentimentality. lity. sion that should inform every decision fices running." 11. The State, as a model employer xploit ployer, cannot be permitted to exploit dded) (emphasis added) 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. 12. Reliance in this regard has bee arned as been aptly placed by the learned counsel for th l for the petitioner on judgements of t 021, ts of this court in CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj a aj and others Versus Pepsu Road and Road Transport Corporation and another, deci decided on 03.09.2025 and CWP-19 hers 1968-2012, Sant Ram and others Versus State tate of Punjab and others, decided o cided on 02.09.2025. 13. In view of the above discussio ers is scussion the Claim of petitioners is squarely cov ly covered by afore-cited s are udgments. The both petitions are judgme accordingly ingly allowed. The respondents are at the ts are directed to ensure that the petitioners ar ers are regularised within six week ipt of weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy d copy of this order by the competen arised petent authorities. If not regularised the petitioner itioners shall be deemed to be regulari eeks. egularised on the expiry of six weeks. Further, even r, even if the petitioners are retired the nefits red they cannot be denied the benefits PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 8 of regularisat larisation. The petitioners shall be ent ervice be entitled to counting of past service and other ben er benefits as per judgments of this C te of this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CW CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State . Jai tate of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LP n, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 14. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands
Arguments
Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate fo 2019. 1133- cate for the petitioner in CWP-11133 Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate fo cate for the respondents. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) CM-14838- -2025 in CWP-11133-2019 The present application has be 51 of has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for per or permission to place on record t of the cord the additional affidavit of the petitioner. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 2 Heard. In view of the grounds taken resent taken in the application, the present application is tion is allowed and the additional aff en on al affidavit is ordered to be taken on record. Regis . Registry is directed to place the same same at appropriate place. Main 1. This order of mine shall dispos d writ dispose of the above-mentioned writ petitions as th s as they arise from a similar factual m ake of ctual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the fa , the facts are taken from CWP-11133 11133-2019. 2. 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 certiorari rari for quashing the order dated 25). ted 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-25). Further for i r for issuance of a writ in the natu g the e nature of mandamus directing the respondents dents to regularize the services of p ew of s of petitioner especially in view of Pepsu Road Road Transport Corporation (Con t and (Conditions of appointment and Regulations), tions), 1981 and in view of law la 2008, law laid down in CWP-8240-2008, Dalbir Singh Singh Vs. PRTC and others decide ure P- decided on 22.03.2010 (Annexure P 22) along wit ng with Civil Appeal No.6779 of 200 thers of 2009, UT Chandigarh and others Versus Sam Sampat and others decided on 03 ) and on 03.04.2014 (Annexure P-23) and also n view of policies/instructions da in vie .2001, ns dated 04.03.1999, 23.01.2001, 15.12.2006 (( 006 ((Annexure P-4 to P-6 & P-16) re 16) respectively. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti s that petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner wa er was initially appointed as Waterm Pepsu aterman on part time basis in Pepsu Road Transp ransport Corporation, Barnala Depot been Depot on 01.05.1982. He had been PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 3 continuously ously performing duties for 8 hours s er, he ours since the year 1982. Further, he refers to off to office order dated 02.12.2004 (A h, the 04 (Annexure P-2) vide which, the petitioner, ot er, other daily wagers and part tim ndent- art time workers of the respondent Corporation ation were granted minimum pay arness pay scale along with dearness allowance w. nce w.e.f. 01.11.2004, as such, this fu of the this further fortifies the claim of the petitioner fo er for regularization. Petitioner was ed in er was entitled to be regularized in terms of the of the regularization policy/instruction exure ructions dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-4), as the p s the petitioner has rendered continuou fulfils tinuous service of 10 years and fulfils the eligibility gibility criteria laid down in the poli 1999 e policy. Further the policy of 1999 provided an ed an explicit stipulation for dispens such ispensing with the services of such employees. ees. He further placed reliance u dated nce upon policy/instructions dated 23.01.2001 001 (Annexure P-5) issued by G which by Government of Punjab, which provides for es for regularization on completion o tion of 3 years of service and it wa it was further provid provided that those daily wagers and s who s and others category of workers who had complete mplete three years of service were to b se the re 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 (Annex rtifies Annexure P-5) which clearly fortifies his case, as h e, as he has rendered continuous servic ture. service which is perennial in nature. 4. 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 Hon9ble Supreme Court in State of K of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 20 er has vi, 2006(3) SLR 1, as petitioner has rendered mor ed more than 10 years of service. Af ent in ce. After passing of the judgment in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3831- -2016 and CWP-11133-2019 4 Uma Devi another instructions dated 15. ) was d 15.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) was passed, pursu , pursuant to which a large number of ration ber of employees of the Corporation stand regular regularized. Further an identical issu icable al issue in terms of 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, 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. 5. 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 Hon9ble 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 f such evi (supra) and the claim of such employees fo ees for regularization cannot be denie ulfills denied. Further the petitioner fulfills the eligibility gibility set out in every policy, how g the y, however, in spite of serving the respondent- -Corporation since 1982, the se s not the services of petitioner was not regularized. S ized. Similarly situated employees of ached ees of the petitioners have approached
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE er 08, 2025 October 08, P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document