CWP-18582 IN TH 206 Meena Kuma State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti to quash the a orders dated the Punjab G for a writ of continue in se 2. petitioners w 1 582-2017 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP-18 Date of D Kumari and others VERSUS Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advoca Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present civil writ petition h Constitution of India for issuance of a h the action of the respondents in not i dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure P-3) issu njab Government Notification dated 2 rit of mandamus directing the respond e in service with regular pay scale and Learned counsel for the petition ners were appointed on contract basis NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 18582-2017 (O&M) te of Decision: January 27, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR vocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull and dvocate for the petitioners. njab. vocate for respondent No.3. ition has been filed under Article 226 ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari in not implementing the regularization 3) issued to the petitioners pursuant to ated 24.12.2016 (Annexure P-2), and espondents to allow the petitioners to ale and consequential benefits. etitioners inter alia contends that the t basis as TGT (Social Science) and ioners ondents ll and le 226 tiorari zation ant to ), and ers to t the ) and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18582 PRT in the y run by Munic light of the Charged and 2016 Act”), 26.12.2016 a Director, Loc resolution in 26.12.2016. T after which n work after t Learned coun years, their w labour practi counsel plac Pankaj Kum 21660-2023 minimum of work.” 3. petitioners’ c 28.12.2016 w by the Direc granted. The 2 582-2017 the year 2009 in Shivalik Model Sen Municipal Council, Nangal. Their serv f the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, D d and Outsourced Employees’ Welfa Act”), the Municipal Council pas 016 and issued regularization orders ocal Government, Punjab, vide o ion in abeyance and directed main 016. The petitioners thereafter contin hich no further extension was grant after the interim order was granted d counsel submits that the petitioners their work is perennial, and denial of r practice and violates Articles 14 an l places his reliance on the judgem Kumar Sharma and others vs. State 023. It is further contended that the um of the regular pay scale on the pr Per contra, learned counsel for t ners’ claim is devoid of merit as 016 was explicitly issued subject to th Director, Local Government, Punja . The Director, vide order dated 26.04 el Senior Secondary School, Nangal, eir services were renewed annually. In tual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter “the il passed Resolution No. 9 dated orders on 28.12.2016. However, the vide order dated 26.04.2017, kept the maintenance of status quo as on continued on contract till 09.08.2017, granted and thereafter continued to ranted by this court on 21.09.2017. ioners have been working for over 15 ial of regularization amounts to unfair 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The udgement rendered by this court in State of Punjab and others CWP hat the petitioners are entitled to the the principle of “equal pay for equal el for the respondents submits that the it as the regularization order dated ct to the approval of Resolution No. 9 Punjab, which approval was never d 26.04.2017, rightly directed that the angal, lly. In Work r “the dated r, the pt the as on .2017, ed to .2017. ver 15 unfair . The urt in P - to the equal at the dated No. 9 never at the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18582 said resolutio alia, because Hon’ble Cou is further sub repeal the sai Annexure R accepted con now claim r guilty of su 26.04.2017, a for equal p employees go to the regular 4. record with t the petitioner the subseque challenge to t 5. with the resp as contractua 6. term employe of the service 3 582-2017 solution be kept in abeyance and statu cause the vires of the 2016 Act itself le Court in CWP No. 4187 of 2017, w er submitted that the State Governmen the said Act, as affirmed in an affidav ure R-1. Learned counsel further subm ed contractual engagements with full k laim regularization as a matter of ri of suppressing the material fact o 017, and thus, are not entitled to any ual pay, it is submitted that the ees governed by their specific terms egular pay scale. I have heard learned counsel f with their able assistance. It transpire itioners are entitled to regularization sequent keeping in abeyance of the r ge to the 2016 Act ? Admittedly the petitioners star e respondents in the year 2009 and h ractual employees for more than 16 ye This Court has been constrained mployees are engaged on ad hoc basis, services rendered by them. The State, b status quo ante be maintained, inter t itself is under challenge before this 017, which is pending adjudication. It ernment has taken a policy decision to ffidavit dated 16.08.2018, annexed as r submits that the petitioners, having h full knowledge of the terms, cannot of right, further the petitioners are fact of the Director’s order dated to any equitable relief. On the claim t the petitioners, being contractual terms of appointment, are not entitled nsel for the parties and perused the nspires that the core issue is whether zation and equal pay benefits despite f the resolution and the pendency of rs started working on contract basis and have been continuously working 16 years. trained to observe a trend where long basis, in spite of the perennial nature State, being a constitutional employer, , inter re this ion. It ion to xed as aving annot rs are dated claim actual ntitled ed the hether espite cy of basis rking e long nature loyer, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18582 cannot be all of sanctione qualifications instrumentali violative of Article 14, 1 employees ca when the Sta services rend concerned d judgements r India and ot India (2024) 2025 SCC On 7. Dharam Sing SC 1735 spea “1 pla the ch co ch de de the be an em Sta 4 582-2017 be allowed to exploit its temporary em ctioned posts or inability of the em cations for regular posts, when they ha entality for a significant time period ve of fundamental rights of the temp 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of ees cannot be forced to bear the brun he State had no qualms about contin s rendered with regard to integral ned department. Reliance in this r ents rendered by the Hon’ble Suprem d others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod 024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & An C OnLine SC 221. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench o Singh and Others v. State of U.P. a speaking through Justice Vikram Na “11. Furthermore, it must be cl placed by the High Court on Uma the appellants is misplaced. Unli challenge before us is not an constitutional scheme of public challenge to the State's arbitrary r despite the employer's own ackno decades of continuous reliance on the other hand, Umadevi (Supr between illegal appointments and and does not endorse the per employment where the work itse State has failed, for years, to put i ary employees under the garb of lack the employees to meet educational hey have been consistently serving its period. Such an approach would be e temporary employees enshrined in tion of India. Further still, temporary e brunt of lack of financial resources continuously taking advantage of the ntegral and recurring work of the this regard can be placed on the Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of nod Kumar and others v. Union of Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad ench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in .P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine ram Nath has held as follows: 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 e on the very workforce. On Supra) draws a distinction and irregular engagements perpetuation of precarious itself is permanent and the put its house in order. Recent f lack tional ing its be ed in orary ources of the f the n the n of n of bad urt in Line PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18582 de Sh ca shi ho ba ext wi 13 Sh shi en per ap on the bec pen ne en the 17 the go con ba pu yea in lon lab en cer tal org 18 ho De est arr the wh rec sim the 5 582-2017 decisions of this Court in Jaggo Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghazi cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) shield to justify exploitation t hocism”, the use of outsourcing as basic parity where identical d extended periods. The principles with full force to the present case.. ** ** 13. As we have observed in bo Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cann shield to perpetuate precariousn engagement practices where th perennial. The Commission's fur appellants are not “full-time” e only by virtue of interim orders their case. That interim protectio because of the long history o pendency of the challenge to neither creates rights that did entitlements that may arise upon the legality of those refusals. ** ** ** 17. Before concluding, we think i the State (here referring to both governments) is not a mere m constitutional employer. It canno backs of those who perform the m public functions. Where work re year after year, the establishment in its sanctioned strength and en long-term extraction of regular labels corrodes confidence in pub ends the promise of equal protect certainly has a place in public talisman that overrides fairness, organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessar hocism” thrives where administra Departments must keep an establishment registers, muster arrangements, and they must exp they prefer precarious engageme where the work is perennial. If “c record should show what alternati similarly placed workers were tre the chosen course aligns with Arti ggo v. Union of India and in haziabad have emphatically ra) cannot be deployed as a n through long-term “ad g as a proxy, or the denial of l duties are exacted over les articulated therein apply ase.... ** ** in both Jaggo (Supra) and cannot become a convenient ousness and to sidestep fair re the work is inherently s further contention that the e” employees but continue ders also does not advance ection was granted precisely ry of engagement and the to the State's refusals. It did not exist nor erases pon a proper adjudication of * ** 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 ssarily be noted that “ad- istration is opaque. The State and produce 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18582 Co co It de 8. contractual e regular work dignity. The perpetuate su availability o of Karnatak regularisation par with the regard can al Court in Nih Bench of thi NCPHHC 65 others vs. S 26.02.2024 9. regularize th hold, based override the p a statute, whe 6 582-2017 Constitution of India. Sensi consequences of prolonged insecu It is a constitutional discipline t decision affecting those who keep p The extended ad-hocism of ke tual employees on temporary rolls work is not only unconstitutional . The State and its instrumentalitie ate such exploitation and use excuses y of sanctioned post, and lack of q ataka v. Umadevi (supra) as tal isation on account of their perennial n th their counterparts working on re can also be made to the judgment ren Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, ( of this Court in State of Punjab and C 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate s. State of Punjab and others in . The Municipal Council corre ize the petitioners. The Director’s o based only on the fact that a legal e the petitioners’ accrued rights. The m te, when no court has ordered a stay a ensitivity to the human security is not sentimentality. ne that should inform every eep public of ices running.” (Emphasis supplied) of keeping daily wage workers or rolls for decades while extracting tional but undermines equality and talities being model employer can’t xcuses like financial constraints, non k of qualification or decision in State as talisman to deny well deserved nial nature of long periods of work at on regular posts. Reference in this ent rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme ab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 inate bench in Amrish Sharma and in CWP-19238-2013 decided on correctly passed a resolution to or’s order placing this resolution on legal challenge is pending, cannot . The mere pendency of a challenge to stay against its implementation, does ers or acting y and can’t s, non tate erved ork at n this preme vision 025 and on on to on on annot nge to , does PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18582 not invalidat eligibility re entitlement w 10. the considere respondents effect from consequentia within six we weeks from petitioners sh per judgment CWP No.237 LPA No.1892 11. disposed of. January 27 Monika/P.C 7 582-2017 alidate rights already established un lity requirements under the 2016 Ac ent was firmly established on that dat In the wake of above discussion sidered opinion that the present petiti dents are directed to regularize the s from 28.12.2016 (the date of the uential benefits including seniority, ar six weeks from today. If no order of r from today, the petitioners shall be ners shall be entitled to counting of pa gments rendered by this Court in Ha o.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryan .1892 of 2019. Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. 27, 2026 Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable ed under it. The petitioners met all 16 Act as of 24.12.2016 and their hat date. cussion and findings, this Court is of t petition deserves to be allowed. The the services of the petitioners with f the regularization order) with all rity, arrears of salary, and allowances; er of regularization is passed within 6 ll be deemed to be regularized. The g of past service and other benefits as Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, ryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, pplication(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE king/reasoned. : Yes/No ortable. : Yes/No et all their t is of . The with th all ances; thin 6 The fits as jab, an, stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document