CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2026 Balbir Singh ...Pe33oner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the peoner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Peon under Arcles 226/227 of the Constuon of India has been *led by the peoner for the issuance of a writ especially in the nature of Cerorari for quashing the impugned order 06.07.2015 (Annexure P/11) passed by respondent no.2, vide which claim of the peoner for pension and pensionary bene*ts for the period of service rendered by him in the Irrigaon department from 05.09.1957 to 31.03.1970 has been rejected illegally, arbitrarily, unlawfully; and ignoring the facts that similar bene*ts has been granted to similarly situated employee i.e P. R Malhotra vide le9er dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P/5); and further a writ in the nature of Mandamus direcng the respondents to release the pension and pensionary bene*ts to the peoner for the period of service rendered by him in the Irrigaon Department from 05.09.1957 to 31.03.1970 by regularizing the same as has been done by DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 2 of 11 the respondents in the similar case of similarly situated employees i.e P.R Malhotra vide o<ce order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P/4); and further direcon to the respondents to release the arrears/bene*ts alongwith interest on the delayed payments. 2. Brief sequence of events in chronological order is as follows:– 05.09.1957: The peoner was appointed as Electrician in the Irrigaon Department on 05.09.1957. 10.06.1959: Peoner was promoted as E.H Chargeman on 10.06.1959. 17.02.1970: Peoner was further promoted as F/Man on 17.02.1970. 01.04.1970: On 01.04.1970, Haryana State Minor Irrigaon and Tubewell Corporaon (hereinaDer referred to as ‘HSMITC’) was incorporated. Services of the peoner was transferred in HSMITC enblock alongwith other staH. 28.09.1972: Vide order dated 28.09.1972, HSMITC further promoted the peoner as F/man (H.Duty). Services of the peoner were regularized in HSMITC on 03.11.1972. 31.03.1995: ThereaDer, peoner rered from the services on 31.03.1995 aDer a9aining the age of superannuaon i.e. 58 years. 3. Learned counsel for the peoner submits that in view of the above facts, peoner is entled to pension and pensionary bene*ts for the period 05.09.1957 to 31.03.1970 as qualifying service rendered by him in Irrigaon Department. Peoner had made several requests in this regard, and it was incumbent upon the respondents to grant pension and DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 3 of 11 other pensionary bene*ts to the peoner as per the entlement. However, no response was received from the respondents. 4. Learned counsel contends that peoner is entled to the said relief also, in view of the fact that vide order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), services of a similarly situated employee, namely, Sh. P.R.Malhotra were regularized in the respondent-Department, in compliance of order dated 14.09.2011 passed by this Court in CWP- 16852-1991 tled as P.R.Malhotra vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel submits that aDer regularizaon of Sh. P.R.Malhotra vide order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), the respondents aDer detailed consultaon with C.E.A.O of the Department, had also granted pension and other pensionary bene*ts to Sh. P.R.Malhotra vide le9er dated 10.07.2013 (Annexure P-5). It is contended that therefore, peoner too is entled to the same bene*ts, which have been accorded to Sh. P.R.Malhotra. 5. It is submi9ed that in passing the impugned order rejecng the claim of the peoner, the respondents have discriminated between the peoner and Sh.P.R.Malhotra which is violave of Arcles 14 and 16 of the Constuon of India. It is further submi9ed that even though, peoner had pointed out the incident of Sh. P.R.Malhotra to the respondents in the representaon submi9ed by the peoner, yet no reason whatsoever has been given in the impugned order for diHerenang the case of the peoner from the said Sh. P.R.Malhotra. DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 4 of 11 6. In support, learned counsel for the peoner relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corpora3on of India, Law Finder Doc Id# 714119; a 3- Judge Bench of this Court in CWP-14874-1995 tled as Saroj Kumari vs. State of Punjab, decided on 04.05.1998; and a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Kanwar Singh vs. State of Haryana (Pb & Hry.) 2024(4) SLR, decided on 10.10.2023. 7. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Peon be allowed; and “the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P-11) be set aside; and further a writ in the nature of Mandamus direc$ng the respondents to release the pension and pensionary bene'ts to the pe$$oner for the period of service rendered by him in the Irriga$on Department from 05.09.1957 to 31.03.1970 by regularizing the same as has been done by the respondents in the similar case of similarly situated employees i.e. P.R Malhotra vide o/ce order dated 19.10.2012 (Annexure P/4) and further direc$on to the respondents to release the arrears/bene'ts alongwith interest on the delayed payments.” 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed submissions advanced on behalf of the peoner and referred to the averments made in the wri9en statement dated 15.09.2022; wherein it is stated that all bene*ts granted by the respondents to Sh. P.R.Malhotra stood withdrawn. 9. It is further submi9ed that peoner was only a work charged employee in the respondent-Department. His services were never regularized by the Irrigaon Department. As such, peoner is not DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 5 of 11 entled to pension and pensionary bene*ts from the respondent- Department. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Peon. 10. No other argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the pares. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case *le in detail. I *nd no merit in the submissions of the peoner. 11. To brieMy recapitulate, it is an admi9ed fact that the peoner has rendered 12 years 6 months and 26 days service from 05.09.1957 to 31.03.1970 on work charged basis with the respondent- Irrigaon Department. The services of the peoner were incorporated with HSMITC w.e.f 01.04.1970; and the services of the peoner were regularized from 03.11.1972 in HSMITC. Admi9edly, services of the peoner were never regularized in the Irrigaon Department. In this regard, it has been submi9ed on behalf of the peoner that when the case of Shri P.R Malhotra Retd. as Junior Specialist was considered by the respondents in compliance of order by this Court in CWP No. 16852/1991 dated 14.09.2011 and services of said Shri P.R Malhotra was also regularized by the respondents vide order dated 19.10.2012 (P-4) aDer consultaon with C.E.A.O of the department in view of Govt. of Haryana instrucons dated 24.03.1987 (Annexure P-12); and thereaDer, pension and pensionary bene*ts were also sanconed to said Shri P.R Malhotra vide le9er dated 10.07.2013 (P-5), therefore, it is also incumbent upon the respondents to regularize the services of the peoner also in the same way as has been done in case of similarly situated person Shri P.R DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 6 of 11 Malhotra; and thereaDer, Department is also under obligaon to release the pension and pensionary bene*ts to the peoner also in the same way as Shri P.R Malhotra has been granted the said bene*ts vide le9er dated 10.07.2013 (P-5). 12. However, the said argument of the peoner is inherently Mawed. Firstly, peoner is in error in claiming parity with Shri PR Malhotra as admi9edly, Engineer-In-Chief, Irrigaon and Water Resource Department vide le9er dated 29.05.2020 (Annexure R-1) has directed to withdraw the pensionary bene*ts wrongly granted to Sh.P.R.Malhotra. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure R-2), the Superintending Engineer, YWS Circle, Karnal had accordingly withdrawn pensionary bene*ts wrongly granted to Sh. P.R.Malhotra. It has further come on record that Sh.P.R.Malhotra had expired on 26.01.2015; and aDer his death, Pension Payment Orders had been stopped by the Accountant General (A&E) vide le9er dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure R-4). Thus, peoner is an error in claiming parity as the said bene*ts stood withdrawn. 13. Moreover, peoner cannot claim negave parity with Sh. P.R.Malhotra. In this regard, it is to be noted that the second contenon of the peoner is that his service of 12 years, 6 months and 26 days on work charged basis from the period 05.09.1957 to 31.03.1970 in the Irrigaon Department, Haryana be regularized. However, admi9edly aDer 31.03.1970, peoner had not worked with the Irrigaon Department; and was an employee of HSMITC; where his services were regularized DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 7 of 11 w.e.f. 03.11.1972. Clearly therefore, Service Rules of HSMITC will apply to the peoner. Further, he cannot claim the bene*t of rule 3.17 A (g) of CSR Vol.II (A9ached at Annexure R-6) for claiming/counng his services as work charged employee for the purpose of Pension/Reral bene*ts as his services were never regularized in Irrigaon Department, Haryana. 14. In the above facts, it would be apposite to refer to a Full Bench judgment passed by this Court in Lakha Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H)(FB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 723488, the relevant extract of which reads as under:- “14. The somewhat similar issue has been examined by another Full Bench of this Court in Union of India & another v. Ram Pal & others 2013(3) S.C.T. 220 : (2013) 1 ILR P&H 943, wherein the regularisa$on of the employees engaged by the contractor under the Contract Labour (Regula$on and Aboli$on) Act, 1970 was considered. The Bench held that the direc$on to regularise the employees is not tenable, as the High Court will not give any direc$on for crea$on of posts or to frame a scheme for regulariza$on. It has been held to the following e:ect : ‘13. There is yet another reason for se=ng aside the order of the Tribunal, following the decision in Kiran Pal & others v. Union of India & others OA No. 800/CH/2001 (which was upheld by this Court on 24.05.2003 and therea>er by the Supreme Court on 20.04.2010), the direc$on given is to regularise the respondents herein. Even if we presume that introducing the contractor in between is a camouAage (though such aspect can be raised only by means of industrial dispute and can be adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal, at the most) it would mean that respondents are employees of the pe$$oners. DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 8 of 11 However, they are engaged only on daily-wage basis. It would not follow automa$cally that they are en$tled to regularisa$on as well. These direc$ons are impermissible. It is not permissible for this Court or for the CAT to either give direc$ons for framing of scheme for regularisa$on or to create supernumerary posts. The law in this regard stands seCled by the 7- Member Bench of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). Again, in a recent judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & others v. Daya Lal & others 2011(1) S.C.T. 795 : (2011) 2 SCC 429, the Supreme Court has reemphasized that the High Courts will not give any direc$on for crea$on of posts or to frame a scheme for regularisa$on and such a direc$on can only be given by the Supreme Court in its powers under Ar$cles 142 of the Cons$tu$on. This is so declared in the following manner by the Supreme Court in that case : "8. We may at the outset refer to the following well seCled principles rela$ng to regularisa$on and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals : (i) High Courts, in exercising power under Ar$cle 226 of the Cons$tu$on will not issue direc$ons for regulariza$on, absorp$on or permanent con$nuance, unless the employees claiming regularisa$on had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open compe$$ve process, against sanc$oned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Ar$cles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and courts should not issue a direc$on for regularisa$on of services of an employee which would be viola$ve of cons$tu$onal scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selec$on which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized, back door entries, appointments contrary to the cons$tu$onal scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularized. (ii) Mere con$nua$on of service by an temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 9 of 11 any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be `li$gious employment'. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not en$tle such employee to claim regulariza$on, if he is not working against a sanc$oned post. Sympathy and sen$ment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisa$on in the absence of a legal right. (iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisa$on with a cut o: date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a speci'ed number of years of service and con$nuing in employment as on the cut o: date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut o: date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut o: date or seek a direc$on for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut o: dates. (iv) Part-$me employees are not en$tled to seek regularisa$on as they are not working against any sanc$oned posts. There cannot be a direc$on for absorp$on, regularisa$on or permanent con$nuance of part $me temporary employees. (v) Part $me temporary employees in Government run ins$tu$ons cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full $me, seek parity in salary with Government employees. The right to claim a par$cular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute." The nature of binding precedent of Uma Devi's case (supra) is impressed upon by the Supreme Court much strongly in the subsequent judgment in the case of O/cial Liquidator v. Dayanand & others (2008) 10 SCC 1, in the following words : xx xx xx" Thus, we 'nd that a work-charged employee is not en$tled to be regularised by crea$ng posts for him and that without DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 10 of 11 regulariza$on, a work charged employee would not be en$tled to pension or his legal heirs, the family pension. XX XX XX 16. Consequently, we hold that the work-charged employee cannot get pension unless his or her services were regularized. Similarly, the legal heirs of a deceased also cannot get family pension unless the services of the work- charged employee were regularized.” (Emphasis added) 15. Thus, in view of the above unequivocal posion in law, service of peoner cannot be regularised. Even otherwise, claim of the peoner is barred by delay. The peoner had rered in 1995; whereas the present Writ Peon has been *led in the year 2019. Learned counsel for the peoner has contended that pension is a recurring cause of acon as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin supra; and by a Full Bench of this Court in Saroj Kumari supra; and, therefore, Writ Peon cannot be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. There can be no dispute with the aforesaid posion in law. However, the peoner is not merely claiming pensionary bene*ts. Peoner is *rst seeking regularisaon; and thereaDer seeking pensionary bene*ts from the respondent Department. As such, the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the peoner. The judgment passed in Kanwar Singh’s case (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the peoner is also disnguishable on facts and law in-as-much as the said peoner therein, had not been transferred from Parent Department to the Corporaon. 16. The present Writ Peon is accordingly dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20777-2019 (O&M) 11 of 11 17. Pending applicaon(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.08.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.08.17 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document