O&M) Surinder Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Case Details
CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 16.09.2025 Pronounced on: 22.09.2025 1. CWP-7614-2024 (O&M) Surinder Singh Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others ....Petitioner ....Respondents Connected Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) Sr. No. 2. CWP-10533-2024 3. CWP-10534-2024 4. CWP-10540-2024 5. CWP-10543-2024 6. CWP-10544-2024 7. CWP-10545-2024 (O&M) 8. CWP-10546-2024 Mangal and others Sukhjinder Pal and others Jaswinder Singh and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Chaman Lal and others Punjab Jiwan Singh and another Surinder Kumar and another Rajpal and others 9. CWP-10544-2025 Rana Ram and others 10. CWP-10547-2025 Rajesh Kumar and others 11. CWP-10549-2025 Swaran Kaur 12. CWP-12279-2024 Rajinder Pal (O&M) Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 2 13. CWP-13443-2024 14. CWP-13451-2024 15. CWP-13585-2024 16. CWP-13590-2024 17. CWP-13765-2024 18. CWP-13774-2024 19. CWP-13776-2024 20. CWP-13861-2024 21. CWP-13896-2024 22. CWP-13949-2024 23. CWP-14007-2024 24. CWP-14579-2024 25. CWP-14588-2024 (O&M) 26. CWP-14812-2024 27. CWP-14972-2024 28. CWP-15062-2024 29. CWP-16688-2024 30. CWP-18266-2024 Kamaljeet Kaur Sukhwinder Kaur Shama @ Shyama Bir Singh and others Ramesh Singh and others Tarsem Singh and another Balwinder Singh and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Prem Singh and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Prem Singh and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Jaspal Singh and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Nathi Ram and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Jagser Singh and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Ravi Kumar and others Punjab Ashok Singh and others Jagdish Kumar and others Jaskaran Singh and others Satnam Singh and others Kamlesh and others Power State CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 3 31. CWP-18723-2024 Corporation Limited and others Neena Rani and others Punjab 32. CWP-18730-2024 Raju and another 33. CWP-19199-2024 Hira Lal 34. CWP-19746-2024 Swaran Kaur 35. CWP-20000-2024 Gurmit others Singh and 36. CWP-20757-2024 (O&M) Baljinder Kumar and another 37. CWP-20928-2024 (O&M) Harjinder Singh and others Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others 38. CWP-2303-2025 39. CWP-2443-2025 40. CWP-25382-2024 41. CWP-26396-2024 42. CWP-2654-2025 43. CWP-2655-2025 44. CWP-2656-2025 45. CWP-2658-2025 46. CWP-2661-2025 Harpal others Singh and Jaspal Singh and others State of Punjab and others Vijay Charanjit Kaur and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Vidia Rani and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Saroj Rani and another Punjab Gurmeet Singh and others Harvinder Kumar Meena 47. CWP-2827-2025 Singh and Kulvir others 48. CWP-28819-2024 Ashok Kumar Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 4 49. CWP-30883-2024 50. CWP-28381-2024 51. CWP-32375-2024 52. CWP-35302-2024 53. CWP-32099-2024 54. CWP-3263-2025 55. CWP-7942-2025 56. CWP-7999-2025 57. CWP-848-2025 58. CWP-8663-2024 59. CWP-8777-2024 60. CWP-9219-2024 61. CWP-9500-2024 62. CWP-9546-2025 63. CWP-9601-2024 (O&M) 64. CWP-9972-2024 Jagtar Singh Satpal Singh Jaswant Kaur Jaswinder Singh Balwinder Singh Chamkaur Singh Rohtas @ Rotash and another Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another Sher Singh and others Punjab Yusaf Muhamad Mandeep Kaur Charanjit Kaur Simarjit Kaur Joginder Pal Avtar Singh Kela Rani Power State Corporation Limited and others Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and Budh Parkash and another 65. CWP-20841-2025 Manjit Kaur CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 5 66. CWP-25748-2025 Gurpreet Singh 67. CWP-25754-2025 Kushliya Devi 68. CWP-19700-2025 Gurdev Kaur and others 69. CWP-27582-2025 Anil Kumar another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Power State Punjab Corporation Limited and another Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and others Punjab Power State Corporation Limited and another
Legal Reasoning
the judgments of this Court in LPA No. 771 of 2016 titled as State of Punjab v. Surjit Kaur and in CWP No. 1933 of 2014 titled as Kanta Rani v. State of Punjab & Ors. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Corporation has fully complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench in LPA No. 95 of 2019 (Annexure P-5). The direction was to consider the regularization of part-time employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. The policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) was confined solely to 25% of the vacant Class IV posts. Pursuant thereto, the respondent/Corporation regularized the eligible part-time employees and, in accordance with the prescribed criterion, rightly rejected the claims of others, including the petitioner(s), thereby exhausting the mandate of the 1999 policy. It was further contended that acceptance of the petitioners’ claim for regularization would exceed the 25% ceiling and result in a violation of the said policy. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondents argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 12 SCC 1, had carved out a one-time exception permitting the regularization of employees who had been engaged irregularly but were working for a long period against duly sanctioned posts, subject to their fulfilling the eligibility criteria, while making it clear that this was not to be treated as a precedent for future regularization. The petitioner is seeking regularization of his services under a misconceived and mala fide interpretation of the judgment rendered in LPA No. 95 of 2019. The relief granted in the said LPA does not extend to the petitioner as he had not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Rather, the Petitioner completed his 10 years of service on 03.03.2008 and therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of LPA No. 95 of 2019. Further, the petitioner has admitted that he has only rendered service for a maximum of four hours per day as a part-time employee and therefore, he is not entitled to regularization in view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi 2021(4) SCT 312, State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal 2011(1) SCT 795 and Union of India v. A.S. Pillai 2010(4) SCT 817. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following questions arise for adjudication: (i) Whether part-time workers working for a few hours in a day are entitled to seek regularization of their service? CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 13 (ii) Whether the petitioner(s) can be granted regularization in light of the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No. 95 of 2019? (iii) Whether the Court can issue a writ of Mandamus compelling the respondent/Corporation to create or sanction posts? REGULARIZATION OF PART-TIME WORKERS 10. The question of whether part-time workers can be regularized is no longer res integra. In the Ilmo Devi’s case (supra) a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice M.R. Shah has held as follows with regards to the regularization of part-time Sweepers who were working for less than five hours a day: “8.6 In the case of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra) in paragraph 12, it is observed and held as under:- 12. We may at the outset refer to the following well- settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: (i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 14 constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised. (ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut- off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates. (iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, permanent regularisation or continuance of part-time temporary employees. (v) Part-time temporary employees in government- run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636], S.C. Chandra v. State of CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 15
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.14579, 14588 and 14812 of 2024. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate with Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate, and Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.12279, 20757 and 20928 of 2024. Ms. Rajni Bala Rohilla, Advocate for Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-3263-2025. Mr. Virinder Shukla, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.7614, 7942, 7999, 18266, 20000 of 2024 and 20841 of 2025. Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWPs Nos.9601, 9972, 10533, 10534, 10540, 10543, 10544, 10545, 10546, 10547, 13443, 13451, 13585, 13590, 13765, 13774, 13776, 13861, 13896, 13949, 14007, 14972, 15062, 16688, 18723, 18730, 19746 and 32099 of 2024 and in CWP Nos.27582, 25748, 25754, 2443, 2654, 2655, 2656, 2658, 2661, 2827, 10547, 10549 of 2025. Mr. Lovekesh Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-28819-2024. Mr. Brijesh Nandan, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWPs No.8777, 8663, 9219 and 9500 of 2024. CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 6 Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.30883, 28381, 35302, 32375 of 2024. Mr. Aman Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-26396-2024. Mr. Varinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-2303-2025. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab in CWP-2303-2025. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate with for respondents/PSTCL in CWP Nos.12018, 13861, 13949, 10546 & 10547 of 2024 and in CWP No.7942 of 2025. Mr. Manan Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate and Ms. Kushliya Devi, Advocate for respondents in CWP Nos.25748 & 25754 of 2025. Mr. Karmanbir Singh Kharbanda, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in CWPs No.7614, 10533, 10546, 10540, 12018, 13776, 13896, 13765, 14007, 13949, 13861, 14588, 20000, 14579, 13774 of 2024. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-32099-2024. Mr. Opinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.P.S. Bara, Advocate for respondent/PSPCL in CWP Nos.8777 & 26396 of 2024. Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Advocate for respondent/PSPCL in CWP-30883-2024 and CWP-7999-2025. Mr. B.S. Khehar, Advocate for the respondents in CWP-20841-2025. Mr. Mrinal Deewan, Advocate and Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Advocate for respondent(s) in CWP-30883-2024 and in CWP-7999-2025. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for respondent/PSPCL CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 7 in CWP Nos.32099, 25382 & 9972 of 2024 and CWP-848-2025. Ms. Richa Tayal, Advocate for Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for respondent/PSPCL in CWP-9601 & 12279 of 2024. Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 in CWP-18266-2024. Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent in CWP-9546-2025. Ms. Shreya B. Sarin, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in CWP-28819-2024 and CWP-27582-2025. Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in CWP-19746-2024. Mr. Hridyavans Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in CWP Nos.28381 and 32375 of 2024. Ms. Eknoor Kaur Sara, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL in CWP No.8663 of 2024 and CWP No.2827 of 2025. Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sahil Koul, Advocate for the respondents in CWP-9500-2024. Mr. Raina S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent/PSPCL. Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Advocate for respondent/PSPCL in CWP-9219-2024. Mr. G.S. Virk, Advocate for respondent/PSPCL. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-7614-2024. CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 8 2. The civil writ petition (CWP-7614-2024) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-9) and for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in view of the Punjab Government Policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-1). 3. The factual matrix, as culled out from the pleadings, is that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Sweeper with the respondent/Corporation (hereinafter ‘PSPCL’) on 03.06.1998 and has been working continuously since then. The State of Punjab issued a Policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) for the regularization of services of part-time employees who had completed 10 years of service. This policy was subsequently adopted and ratified by the respondent/Corporation vide Office Orders dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) and 10.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) respectively. Clause 2 of the Policy dated 04.03.1999 is reproduced below: “2. After thorough consideration Government have decided to formulate a policy for the regularization of the services of Part time workers as follows:- (A) The part time workers who have worked for 10 years or more will be considered for regular appointment in the concerned department and in the concerned District against 25% Class IV vacancies which will become available hereafter subject to the following:- (i) that during the tenure of their employment on part time basis for 10 years or more, their presence on duty should have been minimum 80%. (ii) That they fulfill the qualifications for the new job as prescribed under the rules at the time of their consideration for regularization; CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 9 (iii) That they will be entitled to relaxation in upper age limit upto the extent of years they have served as part time workers; (iv) That they had been appointed initially on part time basis through Employment Exchange or through open advertisement in the Press and (v) That they are otherwise found suitable for the job.” (Emphasis added) 4. Having completed more than 10 years of service, the petitioner sought regularization. Upon the respondents’ failure to act, the petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees, filed CWP No. 2828 of 2016. A Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-4), directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization as per the 1999 Policy and grant consequential benefits. The respondent/Corporation challenged this decision by filing LPA No. 95 of 2019. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P-5). The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Corporation against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.09.2023. 5. In purported compliance with the Division Bench’s order, the respondent/Corporation passed agendas for regularization of total 352 PTS workers out of which 298 PTS workers are from PSPCL and the remaining 54 workers are from Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited (‘PSTCL’). However, the petitioner’s claim for regularization was rejected vide impugned order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-9) solely on the ground that he did not complete 10 years CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 10 of service on or before the cut-off date of 10.04.2006. Aggrieved by this rejection and the respondent/Corporation’s move to change the service conditions of such employees from departmental to outsourced, the petitioner has approached this Court. CONTENTIONS 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), inter alia, submitted that the impugned order misinterprets the mandate of the Division Bench in LPA No. 95 of 2019 (Annexure P-5). The Policy dated 04.03.1999 (Annexure P-1) is a standing policy that is still in existence and unequivocally states that employees completing 10 years of service on the date of the policy or later on are to be regularized. The petitioner, having rendered over 26 years of continuous service, is squarely covered by this policy. Further, it was argued that the action of the respondents is blatantly discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. While the respondents regularized 352 employees, they arbitrarily denied the same benefit to the petitioner, who is similarly situated in all respects except for the artificially imposed cut-off date of 10.04.2006, which finds no mention in the original 1999 Policy. The affidavit filed by the Accounts officer of the respondent/Corporation reveals that there are 3931 vacant Group-D posts against a sanctioned strength of 8076. Thus, the plea of lack of vacant posts is untenable as this Court has the power to direct the Respondents to create sanctioned posts for part-time workers out of the vacant posts for Group-D employees beyond the 25% ceiling given in CWP-7614-2024 & CONNECTED CASES 11 the 1999 policy. Moreover, the attempt to change the petitioner's service condition from a departmental employee to an outsourced worker, after he has accrued a right to be considered for regularization under a settled policy, is arbitrary and unjust. The learned counsel placed reliance on