CWP-12434 IN TH 201(2nd case) Akash Sharm State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti for quashing by responden his service ha in the nature the service of had accrued Temporary, W 1 434-2022 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA case) CWP Date o Sharma VERSUS Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Sr. Advo Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of a shing the Speaking Order dated 20.01 ondent No.2, vide which the petition vice has been declined. A further praye ature of Mandamus, directing the resp vice of the petitioner in view of the fac ccrued under “The Punjab Ad ho ry, Work Charged and Outsourced NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-12434-2022 Date of Decision: February 13, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR . Advocate with Mr. Shiv Charanjit, unjab. te for respondents No.2 to 4. has been filed under Articles 226/227 e of a writ in the nature of Certiorari 20.01.2022 (Annexure P-22) passed etitioner’s claim for regularization of r prayer is made for issuance of a writ he respondent authorities to regularize the fact that his right to be regularized hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, ced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016 2026 itioner ondents ranjit, 6/227 rari assed ion of a writ larize arized age, 16” PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 (hereinafter r when he sub The petitione placement at and all conse CONTENTI 2. petitioner sta July, 2010 as (Annexure Corporation, noting that th petitioner had Provider for that he be Commissione recommendat 3. (Annexure P Amritsar, eng 01.11.2011 appointment 2 434-2022 after referred to as ‘the Act of 2016’), he submitted his representation dated etitioner further seeks reinstatement ent at the appropriate stage of the pa consequential perks and allowances. ENTIONS Learned counsel for the petition er started working in the responden 010 as a Computer Typist through a S ure P-4), the Superintending E ation, Amritsar recommended his e that there was an acute shortage of er had already been working in the d er for the past one year with satisfact e be appointed in place of a s issioner, Municipal Corporation, endation on 18.10.2011. Pursuant thereto, an agreement ure P-5) between the petitioner an ar, engaging him as Computer Typist 011 to 31.10.2012. Thereafter, tment was extended continuously thro 016’), which held the full force of law dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P-19). ement with effect from 31.01.2017, the pay scale with yearly increments, nces. petitioner inter alia contends that the pondent-Municipal Corporation from gh a Service Provider. On 17.10.2011 ing Engineer (Civil), Municipal his engagement on contract basis, ge of Computer Typists and that the n the department through the Service tisfactory work. It was recommended f a superannuated employee. The ation, Amritsar sanctioned this ement was executed on 01.11.2011 ner and the Municipal Corporation, Typist for a period of one year from after, the petitioner’s contractual ly through successive agreements and of law 19). .2017, ents, at the from .2011 icipal basis, at the ervice ended . The this .2011 ration, from actual ts and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 sanctions: b 02.04.2012 18.03.2013 a 01.04.2013 t dated 14.03.2 01.04.2014 t dated 20.01.2 01.02.2015 to dated 29.12. 31.10.2016 ( 22.12.2016 a (Annexures P 4. 31.01.2017, Municipal Co 9 months- fro respondent N recommendin months- from that this pr Commissione took over wh 3 434-2022 ns: by agreement dated 02.04.201 012 to 31.03.2013 (Annexure P- 013 and agreement dated 01.04.20 013 to 31.03.2014 (Annexures P-7 4.03.2014 and agreement dated 01.04 014 to 31.01.2015 (Annexures P-9 a 0.01.2015 and agreement dated 03.03 015 to 31.12.2015 (Annexures P-11 29.12.2015 and sanction extending 016 (Annexures P-13 and P-14); a 016 and sanction extending the term ures P-15 and P-16). On 20.01.2017, before the exp 017, the petitioner made a represe ipal Corporation, Amritsar requesting from 01.02.2017 to 31.10.2017 (A dent No.4-the Executive Engineer ending further extension of the petiti from 01.02.2017 to 30.06.2017 (A his proposal was considered and issioner, but before it could be given er who did not grant the said extensio 04.2012 extending the term from -6); by recommendation dated .04.2013 extending the term from 7 and P-8); by recommendation 01.04.2014 extending the term from 9 and P-10); by recommendation 03.03.2015 extending the term from 11 and P-12); by recommendation nding the term from 01.01.2016 to 14); and by recommendation dated term from 01.11.2016 to 31.01.2017 he expiry of his sanction period on epresentation to the Commissioner, esting further extension of his term by 017 (Annexure P-17). On 15.03.2017, ineer (Civil), put up a proposal petitioner’s term for a period of five 17 (Annexure P-18). It is contended and approved by the previous given effect to, a new Commissioner tension. from dated from dation from dation from dation 16 to dated .2017 od on ioner, rm by .2017, oposal f five ended vious sioner PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 5. another repre services be submitted tha 24.12.2016 (A services of contractual, Government years preced regularized, initial appoin the concerne regularization 6. (Annexure P way of CWP (Annexure P Municipal C 20.01.2017 e order. 7. Municipal Co 4 434-2022 On the same date i.e., 20.01.2 r representation (Annexure P-19) to re s be regularised as per the new p ted that the Act of 2016 had been not 016 (Annexure P-20). Section 3(1) of s of Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ em tual, daily wage, temporary or work ment or its entities for a continuous preceding the date of coming into f ized, subject to fulfillment of certain appointment was made by following ncerned entity is in a financial po ization. Since the petitioner’s repre e P-19) was not decided, he was co CWP No.10185 of 2017. Consequent ure P-21), this Court directed respon ipal Corporation, Amritsar, to dec 017 expeditiously, in accordance wi In compliance with the afores ipal Corporation, Amritsar passed the 20.01.2017, the petitioner submitted ) to respondent No.4, praying that his ew policy of the Government. It is en notified by the State of Punjab on 3(1) of the Act of 2016 mandated that ’ employees working on ad hoc, work charged basis under the State inuous period of not less than three into force of the said Act, shall be certain conditions including that the wing a transparent process, and that ial position to bear the burden of representation dated 20.01.2017 as constrained to move this Court by equently, vide order dated 15.11.2021 respondent No.2, the Commissioner, o decide the representation dated ce with law, by passing a speaking aforesaid order, the Commissioner, d the impugned speaking order dated mitted at his . It is jab on d that hoc, State three all be at the d that en of .2017 urt by .2021 ioner, dated aking ioner, dated PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 20.01.2022 ( counsel argu proceeds on t The Punjab 2021 (hereina the said Bill therefore, nev repealed yet. of 2016 was s 19) could on representation of the Bill of 8. impugned or entry” is pate successive ex Executive En the Commiss orders. The advertise the requirement “transparent involved reco 5 434-2022 022 (Annexure P-22), rejecting th l argued that the impugned order i ds on the basis that the Act of 2016 ha jab Protection and Regularization hereinafter referred to as ‘Bill of 2021 id Bill never attained the assent of re, never became an Act. Consequentl d yet. On 20.01.2022, when the impu 6 was still in force. The representation uld only be decided in terms of the ntation was made i.e., under the Act Bill of 2021 which had not come into f Learned counsel further submitt ned order regarding the petitioner’s a is patently erroneous. The petitioner sive extension were recommended by ive Engineer or the Superintending En mmissioner, Municipal Corporation, A The petitioner had no control over se the post or not. Under Section ment is that the initial appointment arent process”. The process followed ed recommendations and sanctions by ing the petitioner's claim. Learned rder is fundamentally flawed as it 16 has been repealed and replaced by ion of Contractual Employees Bill, f 2021’) (Annexure P-23). However, ent of the Governor of Punjab and quently, the Act of 2016 has not been impugned order was passed, the Act tation dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure P f the statute in force at the time the e Act of 2016, and not the provisions into force. ubmitted that the ground taken in the er’s appointment being a “backdoor tioner’s initial appointment and each ded by senior authorities such as the ing Engineer and were sanctioned by tion, Amritsar himself through written l over the Corporation's decision to ction 3(c) of the Act of 2016, the tment must be made by following a llowed in the petitioner’s case, which ons by the highest authorities in the arned as it ed by Bill, ever, b and t been e Act ure P- e the isions in the kdoor each as the ed by ritten ion to 6, the ing a which in the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 Corporation, the petitioner the requirem conditions fo made to suf advertisemen of the due pr entry.” 9. that the petit Government Para 2 of the is to be cond the case of t petitioner eit conducted b responsible fo 10. that the imp based on leg interference b Computer T 6 434-2022 ation, and was completely transparen itioner had worked for more than fiv uirement of three years under the ons for regularization. It is contende to suffer for the failure of the resp sement for the said post. Since the pe due process, the same cannot be subs Furthermore, an objection was e petitioner never cleared the Punjabi ment Recruitment Policy, 2004, whic of the said policy itself states that the q conducted by the “Board” or by the e of the respondents that a Punjabi er either refused to take part in or fa ted by the appointing authority, t sible for not clearing the same. Per contra, learned counsel for e impugned speaking order dated 2 on legal and reasonable consideratio rence by this Court. It is submitted tha ter Typist in the budgetary posts sparent. Learned counsel argued that an five years continuously as against r the Act of 2016, and fulfilled all ntended that the petitioner cannot be e respondent authorities to issue an the petitioner was appointed in terms e subsequently branded as “backdoor n was raised in the impugned order unjabi Typing Test as per the Punjab , which is arbitrary and unreasonable. at the qualifying typing test in Punjabi y the “appointing authority”. It is not njabi Typing Test was held that the n or failed. Thus, if no test was ever rity, the petitioner cannot be held sel for respondents No.2 to 4 argued ated 20.01.2022 (Annexure P-22) is derations and does not call for any ted that there is no sanctioned post of posts of the respondent-Municipal d that gainst ed all ot be ue an terms kdoor order unjab nable. unjabi is not at the s ever held rgued 22) is r any ost of icipal PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 Corporation. cum-service contract basi basis. These contract basi shall not be c 11. recruitment, followed befo Engineer, on appointment his service w to the year petitioner aft Corporation, 12. no authority t prerogative o service emplo or resolution petitioner as submitted tha 7 434-2022 ation. The petitioner was initially hire rvice provider in the year 2010, and t basis through written contractual These agreements contained a clause t basis will not be considered for sen ot be considered as Municipal Service Learned counsel further cont ment, i.e., advertisement of the post, ed before executing the contract agreem er, on the verbal request of the petitio tment on contractual basis (Annexure vice was extended in subsequent years year 2017. However, no further e er after 01.02.2017 and he has not b ation, Amritsar since the said date. It is argued that the Commissio ority to appoint any employee in the M ative of the Municipal Corporation to employee by way of passing a resolu lution was ever passed by the Corp er as Computer Typist, even on ted that it is a clear cut case of back-do ly hired through an outsource agency 0, and thereafter, he was engaged on actual agreements on a year-to-year clause that the service rendered on for seniority or any other claim, and ervice in any manner. contended that no procedure of post, test, interview, etc., was ever agreements. The then Superintending petitioner, recommended his case for nexure P-4), and in a similar manner, t years by fresh contracts, executed up rther extension was granted to the s not been working in the Municipal missioner, Municipal Corporation has n the Municipal Service; it is only the ion to appoint any non-provincialized resolution to that effect. No approval e Corporation House to appoint the n on contractual basis. Thus, it is door entry. ency- ed on year ed on , and re of s ever nding se for anner, ted up the icipal n has ly the alized proval nt the it is PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 13. vires of the s 2017 titled 06.04.2017, t the State Go Hon'ble Supr Devi (2006) orally inquir regarding the through its Government with a new B the State Gov Punjab Prote which includ 11.11.2022 s Governor a dated 11.09.2 rendered infr granted any b 14. Corporation, (Annexure P 8 434-2022 Regarding the Act of 2016, lear f the said Act was challenged before ‘Anika Gupta and another vs. S 017, took serious note of the legality te Government to examine the same e Supreme Court in Secretary, State 06) 4 SCC 1. During the hearing o inquired about the decision taken b ng the Act of 2016. In this regard, h its letter dated 16.08.2018, subm ment of Punjab had decided to repeal new Bill. Thus, based on the advice of te Government decided to repeal the A rotection and Regularization of Co included a repeal clause. A reply a 022 stating that the aforesaid Bill or and the same is likely to be rece 1.09.2024, CWP No.4187 of 2017 ed infructuous. Therefore, it is argue any benefit under the Act of 2016. Learned counsel submitted that ation, Amritsar decided the repr ure P-19) keeping in mind the provisi 6, learned counsel submitted that the efore this Court in CWP No.4187 of vs. State of Punjab.’ This Court, on egality of the legislation and directed same in light of the decision of the tate of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma ring of the aforesaid case, this Court aken by the Government of Punjab egard, the Department of Personnel, submitted a reply stating that the repeal the Act of 2016 and replace it vice of the Advocate General, Punjab, l the Act of 2016 and introduced The f Contractual Employees Bill, 2021 eply affidavit was filed in Court on Bill is awaiting the assent of the e received. Consequently, vide order was disposed of as having been argued that the petitioner cannot be d that the Commissioner, Municipal representation dated 20.01.2017 rovisions of the Act of 2016 and only at the 87 of rt, on rected of the ma Court unjab onnel, at the lace it unjab, The 021, urt on of the order been ot be icipal .2017 d only PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 a reference h the attention the Governo counsel argue thereof speci following a t petitioner is a by the Muni Computer Ty Punjab Gove applicant to Clerk, but prerequisites satisfied. 15. Hon'ble Supr enters a tem worker and t recognized b the conseque or contractua of legitimate 9 434-2022 ence has been made to the Bill of 2021 ention of this Court that the Bill of 2 vernor of Punjab and therefore, did l argued that even if only the Act of 2 ecifically requires that the initial ing a transparent process. In the prese er is a back-door entry into service, a Municipal Corporation, Amritsar fo ter Typist, and neither was the due Government Recruitment Policy, 2 nt to clear the Punjabi Typing Test but the petitioner had never cleared isites for regularization under Section Learned counsel further placed e Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra a temporary employment or is enga and the engagement is not based on ized by the relevant rules or procedur sequences of the nature of the appoin ractual in nature. Therefore, such a pe timate expectation to claim confirmat f 2021. It was specifically brought to ll of 2021 never attained assent from e, did not become an Act. Learned ct of 2016 is considered, Section 3(c) initial appointment must be made by present case, the appointment of the rvice, as no advertisement was issued r for appointment to the post of e due process followed. As per the licy, 2004, it is compulsory for an Test for appointment to the post of leared any such test. Therefore, the Section 3(c) of the Act of 2016 is not laced reliance on the judgment of the upra) to contend that when a person engaged as a contractual or casual sed on a proper selection process as ocedure, he is deemed to be aware of appointment being temporary, casual h a person cannot invoke the doctrine firmation to the post when a regular ght to t from arned n 3(c) de by of the issued ost of er the or an ost of e, the is not of the erson casual ess as are of casual ctrine egular PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 appointment procedure for OBSERVAT 16. the record w adjudication: I. Wheth Work C repeal II. If the a entitled  The cu 17. in force unle declared ultr abeyance by intention to judgement re State of U.P wherein the which are co express repea 10 434-2022 tment to the same could be made ure for selection. RVATION & ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel fo cord with their able assistance, the ation: hether ‘The Punjab Ad hoc, Contra ork Charged and Outsourced Emplo pealed? the answer to the above is in the ne titled to regularisation of service und he current status of the Act of 2 It is trite law that a duly enacted e unless it is superseded or repeale ultra vires by a competent Court. ce by merely making a statement befo n to repeal it. In this regard, a re ent rendered by a two-Judge bench of U.P. vs. M/s. Hindustan Aluminiu n the Court has referred to the six d are considered as having ceased to s repeal or having by lapse of time o made only by following a proper nsel for the parties and after perusing e, the following questions arise for ntractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, mployees' Welfare Act, 2016’ stands e negative, whether the petitioner is e under the said Act of 2016? of 2016 nacted legislation continues to remain repealed in accordance with law or ourt. A legislation cannot be put in nt before a Court or by expressing an , a reference must be made to the nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in inium Corpn., (1979) 3 SCC 229 six different classes of enactments, ed to be in force otherwise than by time otherwise become unnecessary roper rusing se for ary, ands er is emain aw or put in ing an to the urt in 229, ents, an by ssary. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 Speaking thr made: “65. differe as hav These for inc 11 434-2022 ng through Justice P.N. Shinghal, th 5. Craies on Statute Law, sevent fferent classes of enactments at pag having ceased to be in force, - "1. Expired-that is, enactments limited to endure only for a provision, have not been either continuance, or which have m continuance of previous tempor gone by effluxion of time; 2. Spent-that is, enactments spe the accomplishment of the p passed, either at the moment of happening of some event or on t or required; 3. Repealed in general terms-th of an enactment expressed distinguished from an enactmen is to operate; 4. Virtually repealed-where inconsistent with, or is rendered 5. Superseded-where a later purposes as an earlier one otherwise; 6. Obsolete-where the state o enactment has ceased to exist, nature as to be no longer capab being had to the alterati circumstances." ese six have been mentioned as the r inclusion in the Statute Law Revis hal, the following observations were venth edition, has mentioned six t pages 357-8 which are considered ents which having been originally r a specified period by a distinct ther perpetuated or kept in force by e merely had for their object the porary enactments for periods now spent or exhausted in operation by e purposes for which they were t of their first taking effect or on the on the doing of some act authorised that is, repealed by the operation sed only in general terms as ment specifying the Acts on which it here an earlier enactment is ered nugatory by, later one; ater enactment effects the same ne by repetition of its terms or te of things contemplated by the xist, or the enactment is of such a apable of being put in force, regard eration of political or social s the enactments which are selected Revision Acts of England as having were six ered ally tinct e by the now n by ere the ised tion as ch it is ame or the ch a gard cial cted ving PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 ceased lapse exhaus to hav catego of leg accom the sta exist, a and no the law 66. It positiv repeali of the will be the leg antiqu is a pe in the Legisla that be to lead the del 18. appears that t ground that t 2021. The im states that th and a new B Contractual 12 434-2022 ased to be in force otherwise than b pse of time or otherwise become haustive list and the question is wh have 'spent' itself or become ' tegories are inapplicable to the pre legislation has spent itself or ex complishment of the purpose for w e state of things contemplated by ist, are essentially questions of fact d no vested right exists in a citizen e law has been impliedly repealed on It has to be appreciated that t sitive in the sense of making a law pealing a law or making it inoperati the Legislature, and should lie wh ill be hazardous and may well be s e legislative field. In an extreme tiquated law may be said to have be a penal law and has become incapa the circumstances. But the Judge gislature, and Courts are not expect at becomes unavoidable and the cir lead to one and only one conclusion e delegated or subordinate legislatio In this backdrop, adverting to t s that the respondents seek to resist th that the Act of 2016 has been repea The impugned order dated 20.01.2022 that the Government of Punjab has alr new Bill known as ‘The Punjab Pr tual Employees Bill, 2021’ has bee an be express repeal, or having by ome unnecessary. It is quite an is whether the Order could he said e 'obsolete', for the other four present case. But whether a piece or exhausted in operation by the or which it was passed, or whether d by the enactment has ceased to fact for the Legislature to examine, itizen to ask for a declaration that ed on any such ground. at the power to legislate is both a law, and negative in the sense of erative. In either case, it is a power e where it belongs. Any other view be said to be an encroachment on me and clear case, no doubt, an e become obsolete - the more so if it capable of user by a drastic change udge of the change should be the pected to undertake that duty unles e circumstances are so apparent as sion. This is equally so in regard to lation.” (Emphasis added) g to the facts of the present case, it sist the claim of the petitioner on the repealed and replaced by the Bill of 1.2022 (Annexure P-22) categorically has already repealed the Act of 2016 Protection and Regularization of as been introduced and sent for the g by an said four iece the ther d to ine, that both e of wer view t on , an if it nge the less t as d to dded) ase, it on the ill of rically 2016 n of or the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 approval of th could not be Nonetheless, and is reprod “14. Th Charg No. 55 19. before this C another vs. aforesaid cas of the reply/ awaiting the The relevant “1. In t hoc, C Outsou 2016). provisi the ver State COUR 11.11.2 Agarw Person awaitin assent concer 13 434-2022 al of the Governor of Punjab. It is furt not be notified due to the imposition eless, Section 14 of the Bill of 2021 s reproduced as under: 4. The Punjab Adhoc, Contractual, arged and Outsourced Employees' . 55 of 2016), is hereby repealed.” As noted above, the vires of th this Court in CWP No.4187 of 2 vs. State of Punjab.’ However, vid id case was disposed of as having bee reply/affidavit filed before this Court, g the consent of the Governor and th levant part of order dated 11.09.2024 a . In the present writ petition, the cha c, Contractual, Daily Wage, Tem utsourced Employees Welfare Act, 16). The said challenge is banked up ovisions embodied therein, thus, ar e verdict rendered by the Apex Co ate Of Karnataka vs Umadevi And URT 1806. However, since in .11.2022 furnished by the State o arwal, IAS, Secretary to Governm rsonnel, it has been recorded that aiting the accordings of Governor’ sent to the apposite repealing bill as ncerned is likely to be received. is further stated that the aforesaid Bill sition of Election Code of Conduct. 2021 sought to repeal the Act of 2016 ual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work ees' Welfare Act, 2016 (Punjab Act of the Act of 2016 was challenged of 2017 titled ‘Anika Gupta and er, vide order dated 11.09.2024, the ing been rendered infructuous in light Court, stating that the Bill of 2021 is and the same is likely to be received. 2024 are reproduced as under: challenge is made to the Punjab Ad Temporary, Work Charged and Act, 2016 (Punjab Act No.55 of ed upon the factum that the statutory s, are in palpable contravention of Court in case titled as Secretary, And Others, AIR 2006 SUPREME in the reply on affidavit dated te of Punjab, as sworn by Rajat ernment of Punjab, Department of that the apposite repealing bill, is nor’s assent and that the said made ill as passed by the State Legislature id Bill nduct. f 2016 ork Act enged and 4, the light 021 is eived. b Ad and 5 of tory n of tary, ME ated ajat t of l, is ade ture PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 2. In t infruct 20. vehemently c the Act of 20 of 2021 neve never metam 2021 cannot repeal clause implemented regardless of become law u the Constitut Executive to only be achie 21. that the Act o repealed in te petitioner for The Bill of 2 defeat the rig enacted legis 14 434-2022 In the wake of the said fact, the in fructuous and is disposed of as such. Curiously, while learned co ently contended that the petitioner's cla t of 2016, it is simultaneously and cate 1 never attained the assent of the Gov etamorphosed into an Act. In the abs annot be said to have acquired the f clause as provided in Section 14 ented and thus, it could not have rep ess of the stage it has reached in th e law until it receives the assent of the nstitution of India. To hold otherwis ive to accomplish, through mere state achieved through the due legislative p In view of the above, this Cou e Act of 2016 continues to have the fu d in terms of the settled legal position er for regularization is liable to be ill of 2021, which has not yet been d the right of the petitioner to have his c legislation. Furthermore, learned cou e instant petition become rendered uch.” ed counsel for the respondents er's claim cannot be considered under nd categorically admitted that the Bill e Governor of Punjab and, therefore, the absence of such assent, the Bill of the force of law. Consequently, the n 14 of the said Bill, was never ve repealed the Act of 2016. A Bill, in the legislative process, does not of the Governor under Article 200 of therwise would effectively allow the e statements before a Court, what can lative process. is Court is of the considered opinion the full force of law as it was never sition. Consequently, the claim of the to be considered under the said Act. been duly enacted, cannot be used to e his claim considered under a validly ed counsel for the respondents has not ered dents under e Bill efore, ill of y, the never Bill, es not 00 of w the at can pinion never of the d Act. sed to alidly as not PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 placed any m circumstance Hindustan A the Act of 20 repeal by th competent Co  Consi 2016 22. services of G “3. (1) judgme author workin charge continu coming author subjec 15 434-2022 any material on record to demonstrate stances as enumerated by the Hon an Aluminium Corpn. (supra) in th t of 2016 as ‘having ceased to be in f by the Legislature, or a declaratio tent Court, the Act of 2016 holds the fi onsideration of the petitioner’ 016 Section 3 of the Act of 2016 s of Group ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ employees . (1) Notwithstanding anything co dgment, decree or order of any thority, services of such Group 'A', rking on ad hoc, contractual, da arged basis under the State Gov ntinuous period of not less than thr ming into force of this Act shall be thority in such service of the Sta bject to the following conditions, nam (a) fulfil the eligibility with reg age limit; (b) possess requisite educationa as specified for the post under initial appointment; (c) initial appointment was m process; nstrate the existence of any of the six e Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. in the instant case, so as to render be in force’. In the absence of a valid laration of unconstitutionality by a s the field. ner’s claim under the Act of f 2016 deals with regularisation of loyees and is reproduced as under: g contrary contained in any law, any court, tribunal or any othe 'A', 'B' and 'C' employees, who are l, daily wage, temporary or work Government or its entities for a n three years preceding the date of ll be regularised by the competent State Government or its entities, , namely:- regard to minimum and maximum tional qualification and experience der the service rules at the time of as made by following transparent he six M/s. render valid by a t of on of law, ther are ork r a te of tent ties, um ence e of rent PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 Provid only if regula excheq (2) Du section Band regula actual whiche (Emph 23. his claim of cumulatively condition, as the “initial a expression “t which is ope opportunity t 24. engagement by any adve 16 434-2022 (d) satisfactory verification of an (e) have good character and con (f) have not been indicted or un departmental proceedings: ovided that the entities of the Stat ly if such entity is in a financial pos gularization on its own without trans chequer. ) During the probation period, the ction shall be entitled to draw sala nd applicable to the post against gularised in Group 'A', 'B' or ‘C’ s tual remuneration being received ichever is more.” (Emphasis added) A plain reading of Section 3 of im of regularization to be considered tively satisfy the conditions enumera on, as contained in clause (c) of sub ial appointment was made by follow sion “transparent process” necessarily is open, fair, and based on objective c nity to all eligible candidates. In the present case, admitt ment with the respondent-Municipal advertisement. The office note date antecedents; conduct; and r undergoing any civil, criminal or State shall consider regularization position to take the burden of such transferring any liability to the State , the person regularised under this salary at the minimum of the Pay inst which his services have been C’ services, as the case may be, or ved at the time of regularization, 3 of the Act of 2016 reveals that for sidered, the claimant-employee must umerated therein. One such essential f sub-section (1) of Section 3, is that ollowing transparent process.” The ssarily implies a method of selection ctive criteria, thereby affording equal admittedly, the petitioner’s initial icipal Corporation was not preceded te dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure P-4) l or tion such tate this Pay been , or tion, at for must ential is that .” The ection equal initial ceded 4) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 recommendin advertisemen petitioner ha Provider for considered Superintendin his case for process, invo execution of any material were conside competition a 25. the budgetary appointment but was a p records that House, which Corporation basis. Additi 2004, it is m Test conduct 17 434-2022 ending the petitioner’s appointment, sement was ever issued. The recomm er had already been working in the er for the past one year, and it was o ered for contractual engagemen ntending Engineer had, on the request se for appointment on contractual b volving a written test, interview a ion of the first agreement dated 01.11 aterial been placed on record to show onsidered for the post or if the pet tition at all. Moreover, there is no sanctione dgetary establishment of the Municip tment of the petitioner, therefore, was s a purely contractual arrangement. that no approval or resolution was e , which is the only competent authori ration Act, 1976, to appoint the pe Additionally, as per the Punjab Gov it is mandatory for a candidate to ha onducted by the Board or the appoin tment, does not indicate that any such recommendation itself notes that the in the department through a Service was on that basis that his case was gement. Furthermore, the then uest of the petitioner, recommended tual basis. Neither was a selection view and such, conducted prior to the 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) nor has show whether any other candidates he petitioner was pitted against any nctioned post of Computer Typist in unicipal Corporation, Amritsar. The , was not against any sanctioned post, ement. The impugned order further was ever passed by the Corporation uthority under the Punjab Municipal the petitioner, even on contractual ab Government Recruitment Policy, to have cleared the Punjabi Typing appointing authority, in order to be such at the ervice e was then ended ection to the or has idates st any ist in r. The post, urther ration icipal actual olicy, yping to be PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 considered admittedly, n petitioner ar take the tes qualification was not throu fact inducted 26. cast a serio appointment and point t appointment prima facie made by foll of the Act o 3(1)(c) is no under the sai CONCLUSI 27. are answered 18 434-2022 ered for appointment to the pos edly, never cleared any such test. W ner argued that the petitioner was n he test, the fact remains that the cation, further reinforces the conclusi t through a transparent process, impl ducted by back-door entry. The above-mentioned facts, w serious doubt regarding the tran tment of the petitioner in the respo oint towards one inescapable con tment was through a ‘backdoor e cie satisfied that the initial appoint by following a transparent process as Act of 2016. Since the condition p ) is not satisfied, the claim of the the said Act must necessarily fail. LUSION In view of the foregoing discuss wered in the following terms: e post of Clerk. The petitioner, test. While learned counsel for the was never given an opportunity to at the absence of this mandatory nclusion that the initial appointment s, implying that the petitioner was in cts, when considered cumulatively, e transparent nature of the initial respondent-Municipal Corporation e conclusion, i.e., the petitioner’s or entry.’ This Court is, therefore, ppointment of the petitioner was not cess as mandated by Section 3(1)(c) tion precedent contained in Section of the petitioner for regularization iscussion, the questions framed above tioner, or the ity to datory tment as in tively, initial ration oner’s efore, as not (1)(c) ection zation above PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12434 a. ‘The P Charg repeale Protec never a to have to have for the same. A b. Since followi Act of be reje 28. miscellaneou February 13 P.C 19 434-2022 he Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, D arged and Outsourced Employees’ repealed and continues to remain in otection and Regularization of Con never attained the assent of the Gover to have the force of law and Section 1 to have repealed the Act of 2016. Need for the benefits as granted by the Act same. Accordingly, the Act of 2016 co Since the initial appointment of the following a transparent process as man Act of 2016, his claim for regularisatio be rejected. Accordingly, the present pe laneous applications, if any, shall also 13, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : al, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work es’ Welfare Act, 2016’ has not been ain in full force. Since ‘The Punjab Contractual Employees Bill, 2021 Governor of Punjab, it cannot be said tion 14 thereof, cannot be considered . Needless to say, any person eligible he Act of 2016 must be extended the 016 continues to hold the field. of the petitioner was not made by as mandated by Section 3(1)(c) of the risation under the said Act is liable to petition is dismissed. Pending ll also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ork t been njab 021’ e said idered ligible ed the de by of the ble to nding RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.06 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document