CWP-34800-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 CWP-34800-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.11.2025 Tejinder Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Abhishek Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. 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 mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Beldar since they have been working on the said post for the last 30 years against the sanctioned posts lying vacant in the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. Further the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) INSC 1034, Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230, and Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024, decided on 31.02.2025). MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 2 2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioners were initially appointed by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, on a contract basis to the post of Beldar. petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 22.11.1995 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 21.01.1997. Both the appointments were made following due procedure and were specifically linked to the Golden Temple Beautification Project (GALIARA Project). In the year 2007, the GALIARA Project was transferred to a private company. Despite the project being handed over, both the petitioners continued their service with the Municipal Corporation. The core grievance of the petitioners arose when the Municipal Corporation absorbed and regularized the services of various other employees, including those who were appointed subsequently, such as Lalla Singh (appointed in the year 1998), Kulwant Singh (appointed in the year 1999) and Nardip Singh (appointed in the year 2000), purportedly on a 'pick and choose' basis, while ignoring the case of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners for regularization was repeatedly recommended by internal authorities of the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, including by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Project Director and the Executive Engineer (Civil). Later on, the case for adjustment of the petitioners against 100 posts of Beldar lying vacant in the Engineering Department (Civil) was recommended to the higher authorities and the Government but of no avail. Consequently, the matter was previously litigated in CWP No. 22897 of 2011, which was disposed of on 14.02.2012 with a direction to MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 3 the Government authorities to consider the recommendations of the petitioners for regularization. In compliance with this order, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 05.07.2012, directing the adjustment of the petitioners against the vacant posts of Beldar on a temporary basis. However, due to the failure of the Municipal Corporation to implement even this direction, the petitioners were forced to file COCP No.538 of 2013, which resulted in the eventual issuance of daily wage appointment letters dated 31.12.2013. Despite having rendered continuous service for approximately three decades, the petitioners continue to languish as daily wagers/contractual employees, while their juniors have secured permanent absorption. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that both the petitioners are performing their duties diligently for over 30 years without any complaint and remain unregularized despite their services being perennial, essential and comparable to those of absorbed juniors. Despite the regularization of several junior employees, the petitioners’ claims were overlooked. Lastly, he contends that the State and its instrumentalities cannot continue the practice of “ad-hocism” to exploit long-term employees while denying them rights to regularization. 4. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4, while not seriously disputing the petitioners’ MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 4 long tenure of service, submit that the initial appointments of the petitioners were purely contractual and project-based (GALIARA Project) and not against a sanctioned permanent cadre post of the Municipal Corporation. The regularization of service involves a significant policy decision of the State Government, which requires strict adherence to recruitment rules and financial approval. The petitioners cannot claim a vested right to regularization in the absence of a clear and binding statutory scheme or policy covering their specific case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. 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 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 MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 5 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. 7. 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 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 MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 6 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 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) MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 7 8. 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, 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. 9. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of both the petitioners within six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within a period of six weeks from today, both MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-34800-2025 8 the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 27.11.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.11.28 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.