CWP-26602 IN TH 202 Baljit Singh State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution directing the the same at th CONTENTI 2. joined service wage basis. T Labour Cour service. This 1 602-2013 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o ingh VERSUS f Punjab and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Advoc Sidhu, Advocate for the petitione Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Kavita Arora, Advocate for REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India for the issuance of a w ng the respondents to pay the arrears e at the rate of 18% p.a. on account of ENTIONS Learned counsel for the petitio service of respondent-Municipal Coun asis. The services of the petitioner w r Court, Bathinda ordered him to be . This award was challenged the r NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-26602-2013 Date of Decision: January 31, 2026 ..Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate with Mr. Gurlabh S. Bhaika etitioner. unjab. te for respondent No.3. een filed under Article 226/227 of the of a writ in the nature of mandamus rrears of salary as well as interest on ount of delayed payment. petitioner submits that the petitioner l Council, Sangat on 10.02.1986 daily ner were illegally terminated but the to be reinstated with continuity of the respondent-Council before this itioner ondents haika of the mus est on tioner daily ut the ity of e this PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 Court by fili petitioner w 23.02.2000 (A service, in sp of 2001 befor (supra) with Executive Of him to with 13.09.2011 (A dated 01.11. resolution ap petitioner req on regular sc P-3), the Exe arrears of sal the towards t 18.02.2013 ( not been paid 3. that the ope authority owi diploma. Th Director, Loc said technica 2 602-2013 by filing a writ petition, however, th ner was ordered to be regularised 000 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by th , in spite of the resolution (supra), the 1 before this Court praying for a direct with consequential benefits. During ive Officer sent a letter dated 26.08.2 withdraw the same, which he did 011 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, he w 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-9) as a pu ion approving his regularisation wa ner requested the respondent-Council ular scale from the said date. Vide lett he Executive Officer informed the pe of salary after deducting the amount p ards the P.F. within a period of 03 m 013 (Annexure P-3) and various rep n paid the arrears on account of differe Per contra, learned counsel fo e operation of resolution (supra) w ity owing to the fact that the petitione a. The resolution No.225 dated 23 r, Local Government, being the comp chnical qualification, causing the peti ver, the same was withdrawn as the arised by resolution No.225 dated d by the delay in regularisation of his ra), the petitioner filed CWP No.4588 direction to implement the resolution uring the pendency of the same, the 6.08.2011 to the petitioner requesting he did as reflected in order dated r, he was regularised vide office order a pump operator. Considering the on was passed on 23.02.2000, the uncil to pay him the arrears of salary ide letter dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure the petitioner that he would be paid ount paid to him as wages as well as of 03 months. In spite of order dated us representations, the petitioner has difference in salary. nsel for respondent-Council submits pra) was stayed by the competent titioner did not hold the requisite ITI ted 23.02.2000 was stayed by the e competent authority, for lack of the e petitioner to file CWP No.4588 of as the dated of his .4588 lution e, the esting dated order g the 0, the salary exure e paid ell as dated er has bmits petent te ITI y the of the 88 of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 2001. Therea petitioner we the experienc claim to the 3/3) in terms under challen service vide Officer, how Executive Of the General 18.02.2013 (A 3/1). OBSERVAT 4. the record, it Council sinc resolution No noted that the Operator. Ho was unanimo part of the sa “Resol Consid Sh.Bal as a pu Beside 3 602-2013 hereafter, vide resolution No.33 dated ner were regularised on humanitarian perience gained by him. Furthermore to the arrears by giving an affidavit d terms with the order dated 01.11.201 challenge. The petitioner was permitte vide letter dated 18.02.2013 (Annex owever, it was subsequently foun ive Officer did not have to authority eneral Body of the respondent-Cou 013 (Annexure P-3) vide resolution RVATIONS AND ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel fo ord, it transpires that the petitioner ha il since 10.02.1986 and was initially ion No.225 dated 23.02.2000 (Annex hat the petitioner does not have the IT or. However, in spite of lack of the req animously resolved that the petitione the said resolution is reproduced below esolution No.225 nsideration of application given by .Baljit Singh Pump Operator has ma a pump operator in the Municipal C sides this he has been working at th 3 dated 28.01.2008, the services of the itarian grounds as well as in view of rmore, the petitioner surrendered his davit dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure R 1.2011 (Annexure P-9), which is not ermitted to take benefit of his earlier Annexure P-3) sent by the Executive y found to be forged. Moreover, the ority to make such an order, causing Council to set aside letter dated dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure R nsel for the parties and after perusing ner has been serving the respondent itially ordered to be regularised vide (Annexure P-2) wherein it was duly the ITI diploma required for a Pump the requisite technical qualification, it etitioner be regularised. The relevant d below: by Sh.Baljit Singh:- s made a request that he is working pal Council Sangat Since 10.2.1986. at the octroi post from time to time. of the of ed his re R- is not earlier cutive r, the using dated ure R- rusing ndent- vide duly Pump ion, it levant king 986. ime. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 He is t should Singh regula Court, Unani regula concerned De (Annexure P withdraws th praying for No.225(supra restriction im Council had award made services of 01.11.2011 ( and purposes benefits of re the requisite regard can al this Court in of 2024. 4 602-2013 e is the senior most in water works. ould be made permanent on his po ngh does not have ITI diploma of gularization is pending in the Hon urt, Chandigarh. The Report is nanimously resolve that Baljit Sin gularized on the post of Pump Drive However, the resolution No.22 ned Deputy Commissioner. A perusal ure P-11) indicates that the petitioner aws the CWP No.4588 of 2001 fil g for regularisation. In pursuance (supra), the Deputy Commissione ion imposed qua regularisation. As a il had also withdrawn CWP No.5038 made in favour of the petitioner by th s of the petitioner were in fact 011 (Annexure P-9) eventually. Thu rposes the respondent-Council wante s of resolution No.225 dated 23.02.200 uisite educational qualification i.e. th can also be placed upon judgment re in State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Ra rks. Keeping his service in view, he is post. Office report is that Baljit a of Pump Driver and his case for Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High is submitted for further orders. t Singh Pump Operator is to be Driver in the scale of 3120-5160.” (emphasis added) No.225 (supra) was stayed by the erusal of resolution dated 28.01.2008 tioner was assured regularisation if he 01 filed by him before this Court, ance thereof as well as resolution ssioner was requested to lift the . As a matter of fact, the respondent .5038 of 1990, filed by it against the r by the Labour Court. Moreover, the fact regularized vide order dated Thus, it is clear that for all intents wanted the petitioner to receive the .02.2000(supra), in spite of his lack of i.e. the ITI diploma. Reliance in this rendered by a Division Bench of n Ram and others in LPA No. 2032 , he aljit for igh ers. be y the .2008 n if he Court, lution ft the ndent- st the er, the dated ntents ve the ack of in this ch of 032 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 5. petitioner did Pump Opera service. Ther same as a re especially sin (Annexure P petitioner is from the fact the petitioner would not s petitioner qualifications legitimate ex behaved in th any misrepre cannot be ma Council in en Reliance ma Supreme Cou Vinod Kuma another vs. Dharam Sin OnLine SC 1 P-3) and its 5 602-2013 Further, the respondent-Counc ner did not possess the ITI diploma, Operator. Yet, his services were re . Therefore, the respondent-Council s a reason for denying him benefits lly since the matter stood settled vid ure P-11). Moreover, it is not the ca ner is incompetent or that his job has e fact that the respondent-Council has itioners for decades since he first joine not satisfy objective standards of r the fruits of regularization cations. The respondents by their a ate expectation of regularisation in d in that fashion reinforces it. At no st isrepresentation with regards to his be made to face the brunt of the laxit engaging his services decades ago ce may also be placed on the judgm e Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India umar and others vs. Union of India vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 20 Singh and Others vs. State of U SC 1735. As such, the forgery of let nd its subsequent withdrawal vide Council was well aware that the loma, as is required for the post of ere regularised in view of his long uncil cannot be allowed to use the nefits of regularisation at this stage, led vide resolution dated 28.01.2008 the case of the respondents that the b has a temporary nature, as evident cil has taken benefit of the services of st joined in the year 1986. As such, to s of reason and justice to deny the ation citing lack of educational heir act and conduct has created a on in the petitioner and consistently t no stage did the petitioner engage in o his qualifications and as such, he e laxity displayed by the respondent es ago, against the prescribed norms. judgments rendered by the Hon’ble ndia and others 2025 AIR SC 296, ndia (2024) 9 SCC 327, Shripaland 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC of letter dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure l vide resolution dated 20.12.2024 t the ost of long se the stage, .2008 at the vident ces of , to y the tional ted a tently age in h, he ndent- orms. ble 296, land and SCC exure .2024 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 (Annexure 3 regularisation 6. 01.11.2011 ( terms of res Council itself bring the sam years. Curiou amongst othe “5. his pr 7. employees to inherently ab employer and source of liv influence. A preventing arm-twisting interest to av benefit of th constitutional judgment ren others in CW cannot be for 6 602-2013 ure 3-1) would not have any b isation of the services of the petitioner Moving on, the Executive Offi 011 (Annexure P-9) regularising th resolution No.225(supra). Despite il itself resolved to regularise the servi he same into effect was only passed Curiously, the same was also made sub st others: That the employee will not dem s previous service.” At this juncture, it must be note ees to provide an undertaking in abusive. There is an evident im and an employee. The employer, ve of livelihood of the employee and ce. As such, it is vital that a fair arbitrary abuse of power is stric isting an employee into providing und t to avoid greater damage, lack legal s of the services rendered by an emp utional guarantees. Reference in this r nt rendered by this Court in Ranjit S CWP-28761-2025 decided on 25.0 be forced to give up his legal rights to any bearing on the issue of the itioner. e Officer passed order No.655 dated ing the services of the petitioner in espite the fact that the respondent e services of the petitioner, an order to assed after an inordinate delay of 11 de subject to the following condition, demand any arrears or benefits of e noted that the practice of requiring g in order to claim their dues is ent imbalance of power between an yer, very unambiguously, controls the e and thereby, is in a position of fair procedure established by law s strictly adhered to. The practice of undertakings that are adverse to his legal sanctity or capriciously denying n employee is inconsistent with the this regard can also be placed on the njit Singh vs. State of Punjab and 25.09.2025. As such, the petitioner ghts to arrears of his salary on regular f the dated ner in ndent- der to of 11 dition, ts of uiring es is en an ls the on of law, ice of to his nying th the on the and tioner egular PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 pay scale as a effect. 8. (Annexure P intention to r CWP No.458 Council had Considering furtherance t release the c apposite to r Hon’ble Sup (2004) 6 SC promissory Justice Ruma “25. legitim agains the rep sense t the pro 26. Th v. M/s. said (a 7 602-2013 ale as a quid pro quo for putting the re Further still, a perusal of ure P-11) indicates that the respond on to regularise the petitioner and tha No.4588 of 2001 in interest of the s il had also undertaken to withdra ering that the said writ petitions ance thereof, the respondent-Council the consequent benefits to the petiti to refer to the judgment rendered le Supreme Court in State of Punjab SCC 465 wherein it was categori estoppels applies to service la Ruma Pal, the following was held:- 5. In other words, promissory e gitimate defence in equity was hel ainst the Government, even when, a e representation sought to be enfor nse that it was made in a manner w e procedure prescribed by statute. . This principle was built upon in M/s. Indo Afghan Agencies Ltd. (1 id (at p. 385) : "Under our jurisprudence the G liability to carry out the repre future conduct and it cannot undisclosed ground of necessity the promise solemnly made by it the regularisation of his services into l of resolution dated 28.01.2008 espondent-Council had reiterated its nd that he was expected to withdraw f the same. Further, the respondent ithdraw the CWP No.5038-1990. titions were in fact withdrawn in uncil is duty bound to act fairly and petitioner. In that vein, it would be dered by a two-Judge bench of the njab vs. M/s Nestle India Limited ategorically held that the doctrine of ice law as well. Speaking through ry estoppel long recognised as a held to found a cause of action n, and this needs to be emphasised, enforced was legally invalid in th er which was not in conformity with in M/s. Union of India and others d. (1968 (2) SCR 366) where it was the Government is not exempt from epresentation made by it as to its nnot be on some undefined and ssity or expediency fail to carry out by it, nor claim to be the judge of its s into .2008 ed its hdraw ndent- 1990. n in ly and ld be of the ited ine of rough s a tion ised, the with hers was from its and out f its PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 xx 39. Th service Electri Bihar gradua regula appoin brushe Chand Munic India Manuf and M to act promis and it cases Aiyar, Orient Mills v Govt. Timbe 9. by the respon instrumentali and therefore are not perce The Hon’ble another 1978 right on eve accordance w 8 602-2013 own obligation to the citizen on circumstances in which the oblig xxx xxx . The doctrine of promissory estop rvice law. In Surya Narain Yada lectricity Board, 1985 (3) SCC 38 har State Electricity Board had aduates who would be taken as gularised against appropriate posts pointments would be contrary to st ushed aside and the Court di andrasekhara Aiyar, J.'s opinion unicipal Corporation (supra) as w dia v. Indo-Afghan Agencies (supr anufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnag Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill Co act in terms of the representation omissory estoppel have been applie d it is unnecessary to burden our ses except to note that the view yar, J. in 1952 still holds good. (Se rient Paper Mills (1990) 1 SCC 1 ills v. Union of India, 1988 (1) SC ovt. of A.P. (2002) 2 SCC 188; S mber Products (2004) 1 SCC 139). This Court is constrained to obs respondents is unbecoming of a publ entalities, being model employers, a erefore, bear an additional responsibi t perceived as arbitrary or violative o on’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Ga 1978(1) SCC 248 has held that A n every citizen to not be deprived o ance with the procedure established b on an ex parte appraisement of the obligation has arisen : xxx stoppel has also been extended to Yadav and others v. Bihar State 38, it was found as a fact that the had made representations that as training Engineers would be posts and the submission that such to statutory rules of the Board was t directed the Board, following nion in Collector of Bombay v. as well as the decisions Union of (supra) and Century Spinning and snagar Municipal Council (supra) ll Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (supra) tion made. Indeed the principles of plied time and again by this Court our decision by referring to all the iew expressed by Chandrasekhara . (See State of Madhya Pradesh v. C 176; Delhi Cloth and General 1) SCR 383; Sharma Transport v. 88; State of Orissa v. Mangalam ).” to observe that the conduct exhibited a public employer. The State and its yers, are held up to higher standards onsibility to ensure that their actions tive of the constitutional philosophy. a Gandhi vs. Union of India and hat Article 21 confers a fundamental rived of his life or liberty except in shed by law and that such procedure f the d to tate t the that be such was ing y v. n of and pra) ra), s of ourt l the ra h v. eral rt v. lam ibited nd its dards ctions ophy. and ental ept in edure PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 must be rea Education & Court further envisaged un any approach arbitrariness Constitution CONCLUSI 10. petitioner has service. Acco 11. to release the scale plus de annum, from on which he Sharma and decided on 26 of receipt of would be en Singh vs. Sta Harbans Lal 9 602-2013 e reasonable and fair. Further, in on & Research Centre 1995(4) SC further clarified that the duty to act f ged under Articles 14 and 21 of the proach, especially that of a public em riness would necessarily be in conflict tution of India. LUSION In view of the discussion has been unjustly denied the bene . Accordingly, the present petition is a The respondent-Council/c ase the arrears of the salary of the pe lus dearness allowance and grade pa from the date of his initial regularisa ich he was granted salary in regular and others vs. State of Punjab an d on 26.02.2024. The needful be done ipt of a certified copy of this order. be entitled to receive benefits of his s. State of Haryana in CWP-626-20 s Lal vs. State of Punjab 2012(3) SC r, in L.I.C. of India vs. Consumer ) SCT 678, the Hon’ble Supreme act fairly is a part of the procedure f the Constitution of India. As such, ic employer, that exhibits any signs of onflict with Articles 14 and 21 of the cussion above, it is palpable that the e benefits of the regularisation of his on is allowed. uncil/competent authority is directed the petitioner in the minimum of pay ade pay with an interest @ 6% per ularisation i.e. 23.02.2000 till the date gular pay scale, in terms of Amrish b and others in CWP-19238-2013 done within 02 months from the date order. Needless to say, the petitioner of his past service in terms of Zile 2015 decided on 17.03.2015 and ) SCT 362. mer preme edure such, gns of of the at the of his rected f pay % per e date rish 013 e date tioner Zile and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-26602 12. disposed of. January 31 P.C 10 602-2013 Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. 1, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document