CWP-3214- IN TH 204 Jagdish Kum State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti or order in th to regularize 139/4 dated Municipal C considering Further praye 1 -2022 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP-3214 Date of De Kumar and others VERSUS Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. P.S Jammu with Mr. Gau Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab Mr. D.S Randhawa, Advocate fo **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India with a prayer for r in the nature of mandamus directing larize the services of petitioners in dated 25.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) ipal Corporation, Rajpura as the ering the petitioners on fulfilling t r prayed for regularizing the services NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3214-2022 of Decision: January 09, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR r. Gaurav Luhani and Ms. Muskan unjab. cate for respondents No.4. has been filed under Article 226/227 er for issuance of an appropriate writ ecting the respondents to consider and rs in view of the resolution bearing 3) passed by respondent No.4 the resolution has been passed lling the criteria for regularization. rvices of petitioners w.e.f. the date of ioners ondents uskan, 6/227 e writ er and earing .4- assed ation. ate of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- their initial consequentia CONTENTI 2. petitioners basis but the dated 11.12.2 directed the service but w extended from date, howeve the year 201 Contractual, Employees W temporary/co three years o Council, Raj Department o respondent- proceed acco regarding su resolution ha bearing N (Annexure P 2 -2022 initial joining with the Municipal uential benefits. ENTIONS Learned counsel for the petition were initially appointed in the y ut their services had been terminated 11.12.2013, learned Industrial Tribun d the respondents to reinstate petiti but without back wages. Thereafter, ed from time to time. Petitioners No.2 owever, on contractual basis. Learned ar 2016, the Government of Punjab ctual, Daily Wage, Temporary, W yees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘A ary/contractual/work charge/outsource ears of service were to be regulariz il, Rajpura had also adopted the Ac ment of Local Government, Punjab vi -Corporation vide resolution date d according to the Act of 2016, w ing such employees who fulfil the p ion has also been approved by the Go No.EB-4-DLG(Rajpura-205)-201 ure P-2). However, in spite of the fac icipal Corporation along with all etitioners, inter alia, contends that the the year 1996 as Peon on contract inated in the year 2003. Vide award Tribunal cum Labour Court, Patiala petitioner No.1 with continuity in eafter, contract of the petitioners was s No.2 and 4 are working as such till earned counsel further submits that in unjab enacted a The Punjab Adhoc y, Work Charged and Outsourced after ‘Act of 2016’), as per which the tsource employee who had completed gularized. The respondent-Municipal he Act of 2016, as directed by the jab vide letter dated 28.12.2016. The n dated 04.01.2017 had resolved to 016, without raising any objection the prescribed conditions. The said he Government of Punjab vide memo 2017/11.51 dated 08.03.2017 the fact that the petitioners have been th all at the ntract award atiala ity in s was ch till that in dhoc urced ch the pleted icipal y the 6. The ed to ection e said emo .2017 been PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- working for regularized t 01.08.2019 (A 8) but to no a 3. claim of reg Municipal C accepted in State of Pun petitioners is CWP-2371- titled as Stat 2023 titled a 4. judgments ci facts of the (supra). Lear the petitioner the governm submits that superannuatio respectively 3 -2022 g for over 26 years, the service of ized till date. The petitioners have 019 (Annexure P-7) and a reminder d to no avail. Learned counsel for the petiti of regularization raised by similarly ipal Corporation, Bathinda as Firem ed in CWP No. 11106 of 2021 titled Punjab and others. He further ners is also squarely covered by the jud -2020 titled as Harbans Lal vs. St State of Haryana and others vs. J tled as Manjeet Singh and others vs. Per contra, learned State coun nts cited by learned counsel for the case of the petitioners are distingu Learned counsel further submits tha titioners are claiming regularization h vernment, thus reliance upon the sam s that petitioners No.1 and 3 have nnuation and retired from service tively. ice of the petitioners has not been also served a legal notice dated inder dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure P petitioners further submits that the milarly situated employees, serving Fireman/Drivers has already been titled as Dev Singh and others vs. urther submits that the case of the the judgments passed by this Court in vs. State of Punjab, LPA-1892-2019 vs. Jai Bhagwan and CWP-10146 vs. State of Punjab and others. counsel is could not controvert the r the petitioners but submits that the istinguishable from Dev Singh’s case its that the Act of 2016 under which tion has already been withdrawn by he same is misconceived. Lastly, h have already attained the age of vice on 31.1.2023 and 31.07.2025 been dated ure P- the erving been vs. of the urt in 019 146- rt the at the case which n by ly, he ge of .2025, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- OBSERVAT 5. the record w working in th Court has be are engaged rendered by allowed to e sanctioned p qualifications instrumentali violative of Article 14, 1 employees ca when the Sta services rend concerned judgements r India and oth India 2024 Ghaziabad 2 6. Dharam Sing 4 -2022 RVATION & ANALYSIS Having heard the learned coun with their able assistance, admitt g in the respondent-Corporation as P has been constrained to observe a tre aged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the ed by them. The State, being a cons d to exploit its temporary employe ned 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 K 024 (1) SCR 1230 and Shripal an ad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of Singh and Others v. State of U.P. a counsel for the parties and perused dmittedly, the petitioners have been n as Peons since the year 1996. This e a trend where long term employees of the perennial nature of the services a constitutional employer, cannot be ployees under the garb of lack of e 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 upreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of od Kumar and others vs. Union of and another. vs. Nagar Nigam, nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in .P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine rused been . This loyees rvices ot be ck of tional ing its ld be ed in orary ources of the f the n the n of n of am, urt in Line PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- SC 1735, spe regard: 5 -2022 speaking through Justice Vikram “11. Furthermore, it must be cl by the High Court on Uma appellants is misplaced. Unlike before us is not an invitation scheme of public employment. arbitrary refusals to sanction po acknowledgement of need and on the very workforce. On the draws a distinction between ille engagements and does not precarious employment where th the State has failed, for years, to decisions of this Court in Jag Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, G cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) to justify exploitation through l of outsourcing as a proxy, or th identical duties are exacted principles articulated therein ap case.... XXX 13. As we have observed in bo (Supra), outsourcing cannot b perpetuate precariousness and practices where the work i Commission's further contentio “full-time” employees but cont orders also does not advan protection was granted precisely ikram Nath, opined as follows in this e clarified that the reliance placed madevi (Supra) to non-suit the like Umadevi (Supra), the challenge ation to bypass the constitutional ent. It is a challenge to the State's n posts despite the employer's own and decades of continuous reliance the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) illegal appointments and irregular ot endorse the perpetuation of re the work itself is permanent and rs, to put its house in order. Recent Jaggo v. Union of India and in , Ghaziabad have emphatically pra) cannot be deployed as a shield gh long-term “ad hocism”, the use or the denial of basic parity wher ted over extended periods. The n apply with full force to the present XXX XXX n both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal ot become a convenient shield to and to sidestep fair engagement rk is inherently perennial. The tention that the appellants are not continue only by virtue of interim dvance their case. That interim cisely because of the long history of in this aced the enge onal ate's own ance pra) ular of and cent d in ally ield use here The sent ripal d to ent The not erim erim ry of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- 6 -2022 engagement and the pendency refusals. It neither creates righ entitlements that may arise upo legality of those refusals. XXX 17. Before concluding, we think State (here referring to both governments) is not a mere constitutional employer. It ca backs of those who perform t public functions. Where work after year, the establishment m sanctioned strength and engage extraction of regular labour un confidence in public administr of equal protection. Financial s in public policy, but it is not a t reason and the duty to organise 18. Moreover, it must necessar thrives where administration is must keep and produce accurate rolls and outsourcing arrange with evidence, why they prefe sanctioned posts where the work invoked, the record should considered, why similarly p differently, and how the chosen 16 and 21 of the Constitution of consequences of prolonged inse a constitutional discipline that affecting those who keep public o ncy of the challenge to the State's rights that did not exist nor erases upon a proper adjudication of the XXX XXX think it necessary to recall that the both the Union and the State mere market participant but a t cannot balance budgets on the rm the most basic and recurring ork recurs day after day and year ent must reflect that reality in its gagement practices. The long-term r under temporary labels corrodes nistration and of ends the promise ial stringency certainly has a place a talisman that overrides fairness, nise work on lawful lines. ssarily be noted that “ad-hocism” n is opaque. The State Departments rate establishment registers, muster ngements, and they must explain, refer precarious engagement over work is perennial. If “constraint” is ld show what alternatives were y placed workers were treated osen course aligns with Articles 14, n of India. Sensitivity to the human insecurity is not sentimentality. It is that should inform every decision blic offices running.” ate's ases f the t the tate t a the ring year its term odes mise lace ess, sm” ents ster lain, over t” is ere ated 14, man It is sion PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- 7. to formulate rendered by regularization limbo unnec workers or c extracting reg and dignity. T perpetuate su availability o Umadevi’s ca account of th counterparts cannot be de during the pe also be made Nihal Singh this Court in 65364 as we State of Punj 8. petition is all regularising 7 -2022 It also appears that both the Sta ulate policies in order to circumvent ed by the Constitutional Courts. Mor ization is neither accepted nor denie unnecessarily. The extended ad-ho s or contractual employees on temp ing regular work is not only unconstit nity. The State and its instrumentalitie ate such exploitation and use excuses ility of sanctioned post, and lack o i’s case (supra) as talisman to deny t of the perennial nature of their lon rparts working on regular posts. Fu be denied the benefits of regularisati the pendency of the present writ petiti made to the judgment rendered by ingh vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 urt in State of Punjab and others vs as well as a Co-ordinate bench in Punjab and others in CWP-19238- In the wake of the above discu allowed. The respondents are dire ising the service of the petitioners wit (Emphasis supplied) he States of Punjab and Haryana tend mvent implementation of judgements . More often than not, the claim for denied and the applicant is kept in hocism of keeping daily wage temporary rolls for decades while onstitutional but undermines equality ntalities being model employer cannot xcuses like financial constraints, non lack of qualification or decision in deny well deserved regularisation on eir long-term work at par with their Further, petitioners No.1 and 3 larisation merely because they retired t petition. Reference in this regard can ed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 3) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of s. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC h in Amrish Sharma and others vs. -2013 decided on 26.02.2024. discussion and findings, the present re directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from lied) a tend ments m for ept in wage while uality annot s, non ion in ion on their and 3 etired rd can urt in ch of HC s vs. resent orders from PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3214- the date of regularization deemed to b past service Harbans La Haryana and 9. disposed of. January 09 P.C 8 -2022 te of receipt of certified copy of ization is passed within the stipulated d to be regularized. The petitioners s rvice and other benefits as per judgm s Lal vs. State of Punjab, CWP N and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, LPA N All the pending miscellaneous a ed of. 09, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : py of this order. If no order of ulated period, the petitioners shall be ners shall be entitled to counting of judgments rendered by this Court in P No.2371 of 2010 and State of PA No.1892 of 2019. eous application(s), if any, shall stand (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No er of all be ing of urt in e of stand RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document