LPA-1811-2025 025 (O&M) Page 1 of 4 115 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF v. **** M) LPA-1811-2025
Case Details
LPA-1811-2025 025 (O&M) Page 1 of 4 115 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT STATE OF HA F HARYANA AND OTHERS JITENDER KU ER KUMAR Vs. **** M) LPA-1811-2025 (O&M) 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 lants . . . . Appellants dent . . . . Respondent CORAM: HO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE HO SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Saurabh Mohanta, DAG, Hary Present: M for the appellants. for , Haryana **** SANJEEV PR ral) V PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) **** 1. This app is appeal assails the order dated 04.0 rned d 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Ju gle Judge whereby it decided the writ writ e writ petition, preferred by the writ petitioner titioner (respondent herein) in 2004, the 004, claiming regularization on the basis of p sis of policy dated 01.10.2003. The lea ed to he learned Single Judge proceeded to take into e into consideration the view express ish expressed by this Court in Ashish Sharma rma and others vs. State of Haryana , ana and others in CWP-2158-2020, for the pu the purpose of directing regularization
Decision
zation of the writ petitioner. 2. Learned arned counsel for the appellants subm ssed in s submits that the judgment passed in the case case of Ashish Sharma (supra) is und n’ble is under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme preme Court in relation to LPAs decid ntly. s decided by this Court subsequently. He, there , therefore, submits that the order passe Judge r passed by the learned Single Judge deserves serves to be set aside. 3. We have have considered the submissions and c facts s and carefully gone through the facts of the pr the present case. We find that it is the at he the case of the respondent that he MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1811-2025 025 (O&M) Page 2 of 4 was work s working as a Clerk on daily wage b d the age basis since 26.07.2000, and the State had te had initiated a policy on 01.10.2 n to 1.10.2003 granting regularization to persons w rsons who were working on daily wage three wage basis and had completed three years of se ars of service as on the date of publicatio blication of the policy. 4. Admitted mittedly, the respondent had complete n the mpleted three years of service on the date whe te when the policy was introduced, i.e. rs of d, i.e. 01.10.2003. The three years of service w vice was on the post of Clerk. He, th ation He, therefore, claimed regularization based on sed on parity, independent of the judgm ma judgment passed in Ashish Sharma (supra) ra). If we examine the case of the re erms the respondent, we find that in terms of the ju the judgments passed from time to tim lead to time by the Supreme Court, lead case bein se being Jaggo vs. Union of India and SC and others, reported in 2024 INSC 1034, ev , even if the appellants’ case is th st an is that he was working against an unsanctio sanctioned post, he would be entitled t t the titled to regularization as it is not the case of th se of the State that his services had been d been discontinued since 2000. 5. Now afte w after almost more than 25 years, it is take s, it is expected from the State to take steps and ps and pass orders of regularization ated zation in terms of the policy dated 01.10.200 .10.2003, as well as in view of the ju se of the judgment passed in the case of Jaggo (su (supra), wherein the Supreme Cour e Court held as under: “26. While the judgment i nt in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of so of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to cons en constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are o is are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate cl mi claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed t em ed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointm “i ointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular ap he appointments, who were engaged en in duly sanctioned po posts and had served continuously for more than ten years co ears, should be considered for regularization as a one-time m for e measure. However, the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1811-2025 025 (O&M) Page 3 of 4 laudable intent of the judgment is lau t is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indi inst indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even cla in cases where in their appointments are not illegal, but me ap t merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government pr ent departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) t the ra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for rig temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explici ov plicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appr ca appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's ap ent's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against eff inst employees who have rendered indispensable services over ren over decades. 27. In light of these consider siderations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government de it t departments to lead by example ex in providing fair and and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporar En orary basis for extended periods, especially when their role pe roles are integral to the organization's or functioning, not not only contravenes international labour standards b int s but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and or s and undermines employee morale. By mo ensuring fair employment practices, em government go institutions can re reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job un job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness the ness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with i em ith international standards and sets a positive precedent for an for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the fol the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. lab 28. In view of the above discu iscussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned ap gned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set Hi set aside and the original application is allowed to the followin ap owing extent: i. The termination orders d rs dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; qu ii. The appellants shall be be taken back on duty forthwith and for their services s regularized forthwith. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1811-2025 025 (O&M) Page 4 of 4 However, the appellants shall no Ho l not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for th pe or the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to wo d to continuity of services for the said period and the same wou for would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.” po 6. Accordin cordingly, the appeal is dismissed both both on merits as well as delay. 7. Applicati plication No.CM-4417-LPA-2025 y for condonation of delay fo is is according ordingly dismissed. 8. All pendi l pending applications also stand dispose disposed of. (SANJE ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) (ME JUDGE 01.07.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether s 2. Whether r er speaking/reasoned? er reportable? Ye Yes/No Yes/No Ye MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document