Anoop Singh v. State of Punjab and others CWP
Case Details
CWP-35744-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 Anoop Singh Versus State of Punjab and others CWP-35744-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Legal Reasoning
rendered by this Court in Mandhir Singh’s case (supra) and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the petitioners in CWP-2621-2003. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant time period. Such an approach would be violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources when the State had no qualms about continuously taking advantage of the services rendered with regard to integral and recurring work of the concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of CWP-35744-2025 4 India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 7. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 speaking through Justice Vikram Nath has held as follows: “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite 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 denial 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 precariousness 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 interim protection was granted precisely CWP-35744-2025 5 because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements 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 and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, 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 outsourcing 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 consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, CWP-35744-2025 6 the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s case (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered 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. 9. In the wake of the above discussions and the judicial precedents as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in Mandhir Singh’s case (supra), the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioner shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioner shall be entitled to counting of past service CWP-35744-2025 7 and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 10.
Arguments
Present: Mr. K.G. Chauhdary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate (through video conferencing) for respondent No.3. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner, who is working as a Driver with respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana since 1994 and has rendered about 31 years of service. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay the same pay scale to the petitioner as is being paid to other employees of his category working as Drivers on regular posts and to release the consequential benefits arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed in the month of November, 1994 and he is CWP-35744-2025 2 serving the respondent No.3/Corporation from the last 31 years and regular work is being extracted from him. Further, identically circumstanced co-employees of the petitioner challenged the order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-4) before this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. CWP-2621-2003 titled as Mandhir Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, wherein an interim order was passed staying the operation of the aforesaid order. The order dated 25.11.2002 (Annexure P-4) was a general order, which was passed qua all the employees including the petitioner. Furthermore, in Mandhir Singh’s case (supra), on 12.04.2019, the petitioner moved an application seeking his impleadment along with one Ramesh Kumar as parties/petitioners, however, on 14.10.2025, when the aforesaid writ petition was allowed, the application was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the ground that their case is identical to the petitioners therein. He further submits that Mandhir Singh’s case (supra) was allowed on 14.10.2025, wherein a direction was issued to regularize the services of the petitioners therein along with all the consequential benefits within a period of six months from that date. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, in compliance of the order dated 02.12.2025 has filed the short affidavit of Kulwant Singh, Director, Department of Local Government, Punjab, on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court itself. CWP-35744-2025 3 4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 are not in a position to controvert the fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.12.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No