Pron Ramesh Kum h Kumar State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-23484 484-2023 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP CWP-23484-2023 Rese Reserved on:27.10.2025 , 2025 Pronounced on: November 11, 2025 Pron Ramesh Kum h Kumar State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS VERSUS itioner ....Petitioner ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG l. AG Haryana. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for ate for respondents No.7 and 8. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. The present petition has been fil of the een filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution tution of India for the issuance of a w mus of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing ecting respondents No.1 to 8 to count/ ervice count/consider the daily wage service period of the of the petitioner i.e. 01.03.1997 to 1 ifying 7 to 14.09.2014, towards qualifying regular servi service and grant regularisation of s nefits n of services as well as all benefits arising theref therefrom with effect from the date of date of joining- 01.03.1997. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 2 2. Briefly, the facts are that the icipal at the on 16.12.1996, the municipal employees a ees across the state of Haryana d ng in yana declared a strike resulting in accumulation ulation of huge heaps of waste on the uring on the roads and other places. During this period o riod of emergency, the petitioner w er on oner was appointed as a Driver on 01.03.1997 o 997 on daily wages. On 04.03.1997, et the 1997, the strike was called off yet the petitioner co er continued working on cleaning e. On eaning of the heaps of waste. On 20.03.1997, t 997, the appointment of the petitioner
Facts
exure itioner was also confirmed (Annexure P-2). Howev owever, he was not granted regularis period gularisation for a considerable period of time even even though vacant posts were avail d as a e available. He ultimately joined as a regular emplo employee on 15.09.2014 (Annexure ligible exure P-24) while he became eligible for the same same from the date of his initial appo While al appointment i.e. 01.03.1997. While the counterpa nterparts of the petitioner were regula priate regularised and given the appropriate benefits, the p s, the petitioner has been discriminated for no inated against and passed over for no apparent reas nt reason. Hence, the present writ petit it petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitio other petitioner contended that most other employees w ees who were appointed during the nd the g the strike were regularised and the petitioner is b er is being discriminated against. Wh ointed st. While the petitioner was appointed on 01.03.19 .03.1997, his name finds mention ention only in the list of 2014 2014 (Annexure P ure P-5). Further, on 13.05.1997 ancial 1997 (Annexure P-3), the Financial Commissione issioner cum Secretary to the Go nment e Government, Local Government Department i ment issued a communication that adh uring hat adhoc employees recruited during the strike be ike be adjusted against available v re no able vacancies and if there are no vacancies, a ies, a seniority list be made and they ancies they be adjusted on future vacancies PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 3 on priority b rity basis. However, the petitioner w layed oner was kept working with delayed payment of nt of daily wages for many years. I fficer, ears. In fact, the Executive Officer, Municipal C ipal Council, Gurugram also wrot .1997 wrote a letter dated 04.11.1997 (Annexure P ure P-11) to the Deputy Commis low a mmissioner, Gurugram to allow a sanctioned p ned post and regularisation of th f the of the petitioner in view of the commendable ndable service rendered by him durin eriod. during the emergency strike period. It was furthe further clarified vide letter dated 16 of the ted 16.10.1998 that the salary of the petitioner wa er was to be made through the vacan equal vacant post which had a salary equal to that of the of the post of a Tractor Driver. As su As such, it is clear that the petitione tioner was not regu t regularised in spite of the fact th esent. fact that a vacant post was present. Learned cou d counsel further submitted that vid 8, the at vide letter dated 19.11.2008, the petitioner inf er informed the concerned authority t acant ority that two posts had fallen vacant due to death death of two employees and requeste gainst quested that he be regularised against them. Howe However, owing to reasons best k s, the est known to the respondents, the petitioner wa er was repeatedly passed over for reg name for regularisation in spite of his name being recom recommended vide letter dated ated 16.10.2006 by eputy the Deputy Commissione ssioner, Gurgaon. When the petitione s on a titioner had rendered his services on a daily wage b age basis for 17 years and 6 month tment months, he was offered appointment vide letter da tter dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure P-23 of the 23), however, the benefits of the same did no id not accrue from the date he beca ation. e became eligible for regularisation. Moreover, th ver, the petitioner was also denied h ecame nied his first ACP when he became eligible for t e for the same on 15.09.2022 after c egular after completing 08 years of regular service. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel nd 8 unsel for respondents No.7 and 8 submitted th ted that a Division Bench of this Cour ther s Court in Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of H of Haryana and others 2018(3) SC e well ) SCT 181 has opined that the well as the decis decision of the Hon9ble Supreme vs. reme Court State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (20 i (2006) 4 SCC 1 was a one- time ant to time measure and was not meant to continue in p e in perpetuity. It was also held that ed for d that various policies introduced for regularisation isation of adhoc employees, which p ut off hich provide for retrospective cut off dates, are not are not legally justified. Further, the se lready , the services of the petitioner already stand regular egularised on 15.09.2014. As such, t that uch, the petitioner cannot claim that his services r vices rendered as a daily wage worker .2014 orker from 01.03.1997 to 14.09.2014 to be counted ounted towards regular service, as a m as a matter of right. 5.
Legal Reasoning
n Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tya vision Tyagi (supra). While the Division Bench held t held that Umadevi(supra) was suppo asure, supposed to be a one-time measure, the subsequen sequent pronouncements by the Hon9b o vs. Hon9ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of Ind f India and others 2025 AIR SC 2 agar SC 296, Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Gha Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC and e SC 22 and Dharam Singh and Others vs. St s. State of U.P. and Another 2025 025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 paint a aint a different pict nt picture. 7. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of urt in nch of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Dharam Sing Singh (supra), speaking through Ju eld as ugh Justice Vikram Nath, has held as follows: <11. Furthermore, it must be cl <1 pla placed by the High Court on Uma the the appellants is misplaced. Unli challenge before us is not an ch co constitutional scheme of public ch challenge to the State's arbitrary r despite the employer's own ackno de e clarified that the reliance Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the an invitation to bypass the ublic employment. It is a ary refusals to sanction posts cknowledgement of need and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 6 e on the very workforce. On decades of continuous reliance on de Supra) draws a distinction the other hand, Umadevi (Supr the and irregular engagements bet between illegal appointments and perpetuation of precarious an and does not endorse the perp rk itself is permanent and employment where the work i em rs, to put its house in order. the the State has failed, for years, to t in Jaggo v. Union of India Recent decisions of this Court in Re Nigam, Ghaziabad have in Shripal v. Nagar Ni and an Umadevi (Supra) cannot be em emphatically cautioned that Uma fy exploitation through long- de deployed as a shield to justify ex outsourcing as a proxy, or the term <ad hocism=, the use of outso ter identical duties are exacted de denial of basic parity where iden principles articulated therein ov over extended periods. The princ sent case.... apply with full force to the present ap ** ** ** ** in both Jaggo (Supra) and 13 13. As we have observed in bo cannot become a convenient Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cann Sh ousness and to sidestep fair shi shield to perpetuate precariousn re the work is inherently en engagement practices where th s further contention that the perennial. The Commission's fur per e= employees but continue ap appellants are not <full-time= e ders also does not advance on only by virtue of interim orders ection was granted precisely their case. That interim protectio the ry of engagement and the because of the long history o bec to the State's refusals. It pen pendency of the challenge to did not exist nor erases neither creates rights that di ne pon a proper adjudication of entitlements that may arise upon en the legality of those refusals. the ** ** ** ink it necessary to recall that oth the Union and the State e market participant but a nnot balance budgets on the the most basic and recurring rk recurs day after day and ment must reflect that reality d engagement practices. The lar labour under temporary public administration and of otection. Financial stringency blic policy, but it is not a ess, reason and the duty to 17. Before concluding, we think i 17 the the State (here referring to both governments) is not a mere m go constitutional employer. It canno con ba backs of those who perform the m pu public functions. Where work re year after year, the establishment yea in in its sanctioned strength and en lon long-term extraction of regular labels corrodes confidence in pub lab en ends the promise of equal protect cer certainly has a place in public talisman that overrides fairness, tal org organise work on lawful lines. 18 18. Moreover, it must necessar hocism= thrives where administra ho ssarily be noted that <ad- istration is opaque. The State PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 7 keep produce and an Departments must De establishment registers, muster est arr arrangements, and they must exp the they prefer precarious engageme where the work is perennial. If <c wh rec record should show what alternati sim similarly placed workers were tre the chosen course aligns with Arti the Co India. Sensi Constitution of co consequences of prolonged insecu It is a constitutional discipline t It decision affecting those who keep p de accurate ster rolls and outsourcing explain, with evidence, why ement over sanctioned posts f <constraint= is invoked, the natives were considered, why e treated dif erently, and how Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the ensitivity the human security is not sentimentality. ne that should inform every eep public of ices running.= (Emphasis supplied) to 8. This Court has been constrained e long trained to observe a trend where long term employe mployees are engaged on adhoc basis, nature basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the service services rendered by them. The State, b loyer, State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allo be allowed to exploit its temporary em f lack rary employees under the garb of lack of sanctione ctioned posts or inability of the em tional the employees to meet educational qualifications cations for regular posts, when they ha ing its hey have been consistently serving its instrumentali entality for a significant time period ld be period. Such an approach would be violative of e of fundamental rights of the temp ed in e temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 1 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of orary tion of India. Further still, temporary employees ca ees cannot be forced to bear the brun urces e brunt of lack of financial resources when the Sta he State had no qualms about contin of the continuously taking advantage of the services rend s rendered with regard to integral f the tegral and recurring work of the concerned d ned department. Reliance in this r n the this regard can be placed on the judgements r ents rendered by the Hon9ble Supr ra), Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kuma umar and others vs. Union of In and of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 8 Shripal (supr (supra). 9. It also appears that both the Sta a tend he States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate ulate policies in order to circumven ments mvent implementation of judgments rendered by ed by the Constitutional Courts. Mor m for . More often than not, the claim for regularization ization is neither accepted nor denie ept in denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnec unnecessarily. The extended ad-ho wage hocism of keeping daily wage workers or c s or contractual employees on temp while temporary rolls for decades while extracting reg ing regular work is not only unconstit uality onstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. nity. The State and its instrumentalit can9t entalities being model employer can9t perpetuate su ate such exploitation and use excuses s, non xcuses like financial constraints, non availability o ility of sanctioned post, and lack o ion in lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi (su i (supra) as talisman to deny we n on ny well deserved regularisation on account of th t of their perennial nature of long pe their ng periods of work at par with their counterparts rparts working on regular posts. Refer lso be . Reference in this regard can also be made to the to the judgment rendered by the Ho ihal he Hon9ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh vs. St . State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC f this SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in Sta State of Punjab and others vs. S HC . Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as we as well as a Co-ordinate bench in s vs. h in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punj Punjab and others in CWP-19238- -2013 decided on 26.02.2024. 10. In the wake of above discussion t is of cussion and findings, this Court is of the considere sidered opinion that the respondents fiably dents have unfairly and unjustifiably held back the ack the benefits of regularisation to th y, the n to the petitioner. Accordingly, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 9 present petit t petition is allowed. The respond are espondents/competent authority are directed to co consider the date of regularisation to isation of services of the petitioner to be the date of date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.0 all be e. 01.03.1997. The petitioners shall be entitled to c to counting of past service and ot ments and other benefits as per judgments rendered by t ed by this Court in Harbans Lal vs. S 371 . State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and and State of Haryana and others v 892 ers vs. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 11. Pending miscellaneous applicat stand pplication(s), if any, shall also stand
Arguments
Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record of ord of the case, it transpires that the at the the petitioner joined service at the time of emer f emergency where the regular munic ared a municipal employees had declared a strike. The pe The petitioner had been working as a till his s a Driver from 01.03.1997 till his retirement o ent on 31.05.2023. It appears tha ioner, rs that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon vide n vide letter dated 13.10.1997, issued of the issued directions that the salary of the petitioner be er be drawn against any post lyin icipal st lying vacant with the Municipal Council, whi il, which clarifies that a vacant post ce the post was indeed available since the very beginnin eginning. Further still, in spite of repe arding of repeated correspondence regarding regularisation isation of the petitioner as well as dated ell as issuance of notification dated 01.10.2003 b 003 by the Government of Haryana, s who yana, whereby adhoc employees who had rendered dered at least three years of service w rised, rvice were directed to be regularised, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23484 484-2023 5 the petitione titioner was only regualrised on 15 , the on 15.09.2014. In the interim, the petitioner ma er made multiple representations and ability s and also pointed out the availability of the of two of two posts due to death of two other tation o other employees vide representation dated 19.11.2 9.11.2008, however to no avail. 6. It is not the case of the respond id not espondents that the petitioner did not meet the cri the criterion for regularisation or t ce of or that there was an absence of sanctioned po ned posts. The claim of the petitioner e date tioner for regularisation from the date he was first s first appointed i.e. on 01.03.1997 arned .1997 has been opposed by learned counsel for r l for respondents No.7 and 8 only in by a in view of the stance taken by a Division Ben
Decision
of. disposed of. November 1 P.C ber 11, 2025 RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.13 11:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document