1 CWP-10385 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10385 of 2015 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Baljinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate, for Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate writ or order for quashing the order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6), whereby regularisation of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.2001 (Annexure P-1) has been set aside after 14 years of his joining service as regular employee, when the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of ACP on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of regular service. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service as Pump Operator on 01.10.1997 on daily wage basis, as he fulfilled the educational qualification of matriculation. Thereafter, upon completion of the requisite medical examination and verification of antecedents, the services of the petitioner were RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 2 CWP-10385 of 2015 regularised w.e.f. 06.11.2001 in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160 and presently he is drawing pay scale of Rs.4900-10680 and thereafter he was granted the benefit of ACP after completion of 4 and 9 years of service. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 29.08.2014 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not worked for three years before 22.01.2001 and he was asked to file his reply within a period of 15 days. The petitioner submitted reply dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure P-5) to the show-cause notice, stating therein that he had completed three years of service as on 22.01.2001 and the then concerned officer verified this fact from the record and regularised the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.2001. However, without considering the said reply, vide order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6), regularisation of the petitioner was cancelled. It is the said order which has been challenged in the present petition. 3. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 through Sh. Rajiv Moudgil, Chief Engineer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Aurthority, PUDA Bhawan, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, has been filed, wherein it has been stated that CWP-24898 of 2013 was filed by two similarly situated persons, namely, Buta Singh and another claiming regularisation and in the said petition an averment was made that the PUDA had regularised the services of many employees, including the petitioner (herein), who had not completed three years of service and in these circumstances the petitioner was issued a show- RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 3 CWP-10385 of 2015 cause notice and after considering his reply, the order of his regularisation has been cancelled. 4. After considering the pleadings and submissions made on behalf of parties, this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 passed the following order: - “The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6), whereby the services of the petitioner have been de-regularized on the ground that he has not completed 03 years service as on 22.01.2001. The said order was issued on 06.04.2015, when he had already completed more than 17 years of service. Even, if he was not eligible for regularization in terms of instructions dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure R-2/1), his case should have been considered as per the subsequent instructions dated 18.03.2011. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 seeks time to get instructions on the said issue. On his request, adjourned to 12.12.2024.” 5. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, an affidavit of Sh. Anuj Sehgal, Superintending Engineer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, SAS Nagar, Mohali, on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for regularisation was considered in terms of the subsequent policy dated 18.03.2011 but since he was not having ten years service upto December, 2006, therefore, he could not be considered for regularisation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined the service as Pump Operator on 01.10.1997 on RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 4 CWP-10385 of 2015 daily wage basis and his services along with other similarly situated employees were regularised vide order dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f. 06.11.2001, after completion of necessary formalities of medical check- up and character antecedents of the petitioner. The said regularisation was ordered on the basis of report of the Superintending Engineer, Ludhiana, and there was no mis-representation on the part of the petitioner seeking regularisation of his services and the respondents, after considering the service record and report of the Superintending Engineer, Ludhiana, had regularised the services of the petitioner vide order dated 26.12.2001 w.e.f. 06.11.2001. However, after the petitioner completed regular service of more than 13 years and in the interregnum granted the benefit of ACPs on completion of 4 and 9 years of service, he was issued show-cause notice for withdrawing the order of regularisation on the ground that he had not completed three years service as on 06.11.2001. Without considering his reply to the show-cause notice, the order of regularisation was withdrawn vide order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6), which has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2015. He submits that as on date the petitioner has completed more than 29 years of service, out of which 25 years is regular service and therefore, the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6) may be set aside and the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as a regular employee of the PUDA. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that since the petitioner had not completed three years of service on 06.11.2001, therefore, his order of regularisation was RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 5 CWP-10385 of 2015 cancelled as his case was not covered under the instructions dated 23.01.2001.. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were regularised vide order dated 06.11.2001 (Annexure P-1), after examining the service record of the petitioner and as per report of the Superintending Engineer, Ludhiana. The only stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner did not complete three years of service as on 22.01.2001 as he joined the service on 01.12.1998. Even if the stand of the respondents is accepted, the petitioner had completed three years of service on 01.12.2001 and order of regularisation was issued on 26.12.2001 and by that time he had already completed three years’ service. Even if the regularisation of the petitioner was not to be taken from 06.11.2001, the same ought to have been treated w.e.f. 01.12.2001. However, instead of treating the date of regularisation of the petitioner as 01.12.2001, respondents No.2 and 3 chose to cancel the order or regularisation of the petitioner after a period of more than 13 years and that too after the petitioner was granted the benefit of ACPs on completion of 4/9 years of service. Thereafter, even he has been granted the benefit of ACP on completion of 14 years of regular service. 10. The aforesaid facts are required to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 6 CWP-10385 of 2015 of India and others, 2025 AIR Supreme Court 296. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: - “20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 7 CWP-10385 of 2015 accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra). 7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…" 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 8 CWP-10385 of 2015 criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. x x x x x 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 11. Further, the aforesaid judgment has also been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-1770 of 2026 – Deepak Singh & others v. State of Haryana & others and connected cases, decided on 12.05.2026. 12. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the action of the respondents in cancelling the order of regularisation dated RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 9 CWP-10385 of 2015 26.12.2001 (Annexure P-1) vide impugned order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6) is held to be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had rendered long and continuous service and had also been granted the benefits of ACP. The respondents could not have defeated the substantive rights accrued to the petitioner merely on account of procedural irregularities at the inception, particularly when the effective date of regularisation alone required correction. 13. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as regular employee of PUDA w.e.f. 01.12.2001, with all consequential benefits. (NAMIT KUMAR) 20.07.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.27 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment