CWP-28561-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119 CWP-28561-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.P. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for the respondent. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the orders dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-11) issued by respondent refusing to regularize the services of the petitioner under Punjab Adhoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (in short ‘the Act of 2016’). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner under the Act of 2016, w.e.f. 24.12.2016, with all consequential benefits including arrears and interest @ 9% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as a casual labourer with the MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-28561-2025 2 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (PSWC) on 01.06.1999, however, his services were terminated on 01.10.2000 without following due process of law. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, and the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, vide award dated 07.08.2013, set-aside the termination order of the petitioner and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The award was not challenged and attained finality. The petitioner was reinstated on 23.11.2013 and has been working continuously since then. On the coming into force the Act of 2016 on 24.12.2016, the petitioner applied for regularization under the said Act, claiming that he fulfilled all eligibility conditions, however, his claim was rejected vide order dated 11.03.2025 on the ground that he was reinstated due to Court’s order. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.14184 of 2025, and the same was disposed of on 18.07.2025 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. Consequently, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 18.07.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered over 17 years of continuous service prior to the enforcement of the Act of 2016 and, thus, fulfills the eligibility condition of having completed three years of continuous service as mandated under Section 4 of the Act of 2016. He further submits that the petitioner’s reinstatement was made pursuant to a final award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and not under any interim relief, as MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-28561-2025 3 wrongly assumed by the respondents. The award attained finality and was duly implemented, thereby entitling the petitioner to the benefit of continuity in service. He further submits that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for the post of Helper and he has an unblemished service record and is not facing any disciplinary or criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that denial of regularization to the petitioner solely on the basis of Government Instructions dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-9), which are contrary to statutory provisions, is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner does not hold a substantive right to regularization and his reinstatement is not on account of recruitment through any regular selection process. He further submits that Government Instructions dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-9) categorically provides that persons reinstated under judicial directions, including those under awards of Courts or Tribunals, shall not be entitled to the benefit of regularization under the Act of 2016. 5. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-28561-2025 4 time period. Such an approach would be violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources when the State had no qualms about continuously taking advantage of the services rendered with regard to integral and recurring work of the concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 6. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 speaking through Justice Vikram Nath has held as follows: “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-28561-2025 5 shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case…. ** ** ** 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. ** ** ** 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad- hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-28561-2025 6 arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s case (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-28561-2025 7 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-19238- 2013 decided on 26.02.2024. 8. In the wake of above discussions and findings, the present petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.12.2016, and release all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with interest @ 6% per annum, within a period of six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be deemed to be regularized. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.09.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.24 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.