CWP-10806-2018 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10806-2018 (O&M) LEELA RAM AND ORS. ..Petitioners Versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 15.07.2026 Pronounced on : 29.07.2026 Uploaded on : 30.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.5. None for respondent No.6. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioners in the present writ petition are asking for directions to the respondents to consider the petitioners for regularization of their services on the post of handling labourer by fixing their respective seniority pursuant to the notification dated 23.04.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondents are not considering the petitioners for regularization despite the fact that petitioners had been working in Moonak Depot of Food Corporation of India for many years as foodgrain handling worker/labourers along with many MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-10806-2018 (O&M) -2- other similarly situated handling workers despite notification dated 23.04.2010, which is attached with the present writ petition as Annexure P-1 in their favour, whereby, employment of contract labour in the works of loading, unloading, stacking, destacking, restacking, standardization, weighment, sweeping and cleaning in the godowns and depots of the Food Corporation of India is prohibited. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argues on the lines of written statement filed by them. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole case file with their able assistance. 5. It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the written statement, which is reproduced as under:- “1. That the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is misconceived and not sustainable. The prayer made by the petitioners is that in pursuance of notification dated 23.4.2010 Annexure P-1, they should be regularized. However the petitioners have themselves annexed another notification dated 6.7.2016 Annexure P-8 whereby the earlier notification has been specifically superseded for it's operation for a period of two years and this period of two years have again been extended by another two years vide notification dated 26.06.2018 and a copy thereof is attached herewith as Annexure R-1/1. Therefore the present writ is liable to be dismissed as such. 2. That the answering respondents have already explained the legal as well as factual position vide Annexure P-6 which is a reply dated 06.12.2017 to the legal notice dated 07.09.2017 that in pursuance of Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-10806-2018 (O&M) -3- (Nagpur Bench) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a policy of rationalization was framed by FCI for phasing out departmental/DPS labour and the Central Government as well issued notification dated 06.07.2016 Annexure P-8 for furtherance of the same and in the light of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). Therefore there is no scope of any regularization of any such labour. 3. It is submitted that Moonak godowns are hired godowns being hired by FCI and owned by PSWC. The work is being performed by the contractors of PSWC. There after the FCI merely reimburses the charges to PSWC. In other works FCI does not engage any labour in Moonak. It is further respectfully submitted that the prayer of regularization is not only misconceived and devoid of may merit but also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. V/s Uma Devi and others. (JT 2006(4)SC 420: (2006) 4 SCC 1. Therefore the writ petition is liable to dismissed as such.” 6. A perusal of the above referred to reply shows that all the petitioners who are engaged in Moonak Godown are owned by PSWC and the respondents reimburses the charges of PSWC. The respondents did not engage the labour in Moonak Depot directly but it is outsourced. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 29.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.