CWP-11278 IN THE Harbant Singh and others State of Punjab CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature seeking quashing of the order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P respondent No.2, vide which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services as ‘Fireman/Driver’ has been rejected and further to issue a writ in the nature services of the petitioners as ‘Fireman/Driver in view of resolution bearing no.212 dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure P No.4/Municipal Council Rupnagar w.e.f the resolution or w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners also pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay 1 11278-2022(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Reserved on: 29.08.2025 Pronounced on Harbant Singh and others VERSUS State of Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. D.S Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms.Rishu Bajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.P.S Walia, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature seeking quashing of the order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P respondent No.2, vide which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services as ‘Fireman/Driver’ has been rejected and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as ‘Fireman/Driver in view of resolution bearing no.212 dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure P No.4/Municipal Council Rupnagar w.e.f the resolution or w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners also pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11278-2022(O&M) Reserved on: 29.08.2025 Pronounced on:10.09.2025 .....Petitioners VERSUS ..Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. D.S Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms.Rishu Bajan, T.P.S Walia, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2, vide which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services as ‘Fireman/Driver’ has been rejected and further to issue a of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as ‘Fireman/Driver in view of resolution bearing no.212 dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.4/Municipal Council Rupnagar w.e.f the date of passing of such resolution or w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners also pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of of certiorari 3) passed by respondent No.2, vide which claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services as ‘Fireman/Driver’ has been rejected and further to issue a of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as ‘Fireman/Driver in view of resolution bearing 8) passed by respondent ch resolution or w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners also pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 arrears/monetary benefits accruing from regularization of services of petitioners alongwith inter CONTENTIONS 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioners No.9 and 12 left their respective jobs and present petition qua petitioners No.9 and 12 stands dismissed being infructuous vide order dated 29.08.2025 of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are working as ‘Fireman and Driver’ in the department of the Respondent no. 4 appointed on contract was extended from time to time. The petitioners are working as such till today on contractual basis. The petitioners regularisation of their services but due to inaction o authorities, they moved this Court Harbant Singh v. State of Punjab and others. 09.12.2022 (Annexure P respondent within three months. 4. Thereafter, in compliance with the decision of this Court, the Respondent no.2 passed order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P the claim of the petitione 2 11278-2022(O&M) arrears/monetary benefits accruing from regularization of services of petitioners alongwith interest. CONTENTIONS Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioners No.9 and 12 left their respective jobs and present petition qua petitioners No.9 and 12 stands dismissed being infructuous vide order dated 29.08.2025 of this Learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners are working as ‘Fireman and Driver’ in the department of the Respondent no. 4-Council since 2012. The petitioners were initially appointed on contractual basis for a period of 6 months, however, the same was extended from time to time. The petitioners are working as such till today on contractual basis. The petitioners regularisation of their services but due to inaction o authorities, they moved this Court by filing Harbant Singh v. State of Punjab and others. 09.12.2022 (Annexure P-1) disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondent to decide and take a decision on the legal notice of the petitioners within three months. Thereafter, in compliance with the decision of this Court, the Respondent no.2 passed order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P the claim of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected. Learned arrears/monetary benefits accruing from regularization of services of Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioners No.9 and 12 left their respective jobs and present petition qua petitioners No.9 and 12 stands dismissed being infructuous vide order dated 29.08.2025 of this Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are working as ‘Fireman and Driver’ in the department of the Council since 2012. The petitioners were initially basis for a period of 6 months, however, the same was extended from time to time. The petitioners are working as such till today on contractual basis. The petitioners filed various representations for regularisation of their services but due to inaction on part of the respondent by filing CWP no.24883 of 2021 titled as Harbant Singh v. State of Punjab and others. This Court vide order dated 1) disposed of the writ petition, directing the to decide and take a decision on the legal notice of the petitioners Thereafter, in compliance with the decision of this Court, the Respondent no.2 passed order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) vide which rs for regularization has been rejected. Learned arrears/monetary benefits accruing from regularization of services of Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that petitioners No.9 and 12 left their respective jobs and present petition qua petitioners No.9 and 12 stands dismissed being infructuous vide order dated 29.08.2025 of this , contends that the petitioners are working as ‘Fireman and Driver’ in the department of the Council since 2012. The petitioners were initially basis for a period of 6 months, however, the same was extended from time to time. The petitioners are working as such till various representations for n part of the respondent CWP no.24883 of 2021 titled as This Court vide order dated 1) disposed of the writ petition, directing the to decide and take a decision on the legal notice of the petitioners Thereafter, in compliance with the decision of this Court, the 3) vide which rs for regularization has been rejected. Learned PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous on the ground that petitioners are similarly situated with their counterparts working as Fireman/Drivers in the Municipal Corporation claim has already 11106 of 2021 titled as Dev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and Others. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order has wrongly denied the p petitioners are different from 5. It was further contended by the l the reasoning in the impugned order with regard to the pendency of No.4187 of 2017 titled as Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and others relation to the Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘2016 Act’) is erroneous on the ground that t at the time of consideration of respondents themselves in that case consented to extend the benefit of regularisation. Moreover, on 18.03.2011 (Annexure P of Punjab issued a policy for regularising the services of employees working on contractual basis for more than 3 years. Instructions dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure benefit of regularization to employees and Commissions. Thus, even if the 2016 Act is repealed, the petitioners would still be covered under the policy dated 18.03.2011. 3 11278-2022(O&M) counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous on the ground that petitioners are similarly situated with their counterparts working as Fireman/Drivers in the Municipal Corporation already been accepted by the respondent authorities in 11106 of 2021 titled as Dev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order has wrongly denied the petitioners’ claim on the ground that the facts of the petitioners are different from Dev Singh’s case t was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the reasoning in the impugned order with regard to the pendency of No.4187 of 2017 titled as Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and others relation to the Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘2016 Act’) is erroneous on the ground that the said reasoning was also applicable at the time of consideration of Dev Singh’s case (supra) respondents themselves in that case consented to extend the benefit of regularisation. Moreover, on 18.03.2011 (Annexure P unjab issued a policy for regularising the services of employees working on contractual basis for more than 3 years. Instructions dated 17.11.2011 P-15) were also issued by the respondent benefit of regularization to employees working with Boards/Corporations and Commissions. Thus, even if the 2016 Act is repealed, the petitioners would still be covered under the policy dated 18.03.2011. counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous on the ground that petitioners are similarly situated with their counterparts working as Fireman/Drivers in the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, whose espondent authorities in CWP No. 11106 of 2021 titled as Dev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order has etitioners’ claim on the ground that the facts of the Dev Singh’s case (supra). earned counsel for the petitioners that the reasoning in the impugned order with regard to the pendency of CWP No.4187 of 2017 titled as Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and others in relation to the Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘2016 he said reasoning was also applicable Dev Singh’s case (supra), however, the respondents themselves in that case consented to extend the benefit of regularisation. Moreover, on 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-14), the Government unjab issued a policy for regularising the services of employees working on contractual basis for more than 3 years. Instructions dated 17.11.2011 15) were also issued by the respondent-State to extend the working with Boards/Corporations and Commissions. Thus, even if the 2016 Act is repealed, the petitioners would still be covered under the policy dated 18.03.2011. counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous on the ground that petitioners are similarly situated with their counterparts whose CWP No. 11106 of 2021 titled as Dev Singh and others v. State of Punjab and It is submitted that the respondent No.2 vide the impugned order has etitioners’ claim on the ground that the facts of the earned counsel for the petitioners that CWP in relation to the Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘2016 he said reasoning was also applicable , however, the respondents themselves in that case consented to extend the benefit of 14), the Government unjab issued a policy for regularising the services of employees working on contractual basis for more than 3 years. Instructions dated 17.11.2011 State to extend the working with Boards/Corporations and Commissions. Thus, even if the 2016 Act is repealed, the petitioners PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 6. Per Contra, petitioners on the 2016 Act is totally misconceived. Moreover, the judgement of others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 view of non availability of sanctioned posts, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Reliance placed by the petitioners on various judgements cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners as the speaking order with respect to all individual petitio speaking order. Further, on 11.09.2024, this Court disposed No.4187 of 2017 titled Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and Others of the statement made on behalf of the State of Punjab that i repeal the 2016 Act and replace it with a new Bill. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS 7. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record with their able assistance, admittedly, the petitioners have been working in the 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 em 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 s 4 11278-2022(O&M) Per Contra, learned State counsel submits that the reliance of the petitioners on the 2016 Act is totally misconceived. Moreover, the judgement of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 is not applicable in the instant writ petition and in iew of non availability of sanctioned posts, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Reliance placed by the petitioners on various judgements cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners as the speaking order with respect to all individual petitioners has been passed and they have not challenged the speaking order. Further, on 11.09.2024, this Court disposed No.4187 of 2017 titled Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and Others of the statement made on behalf of the State of Punjab that i repeal the 2016 Act and replace it with a new Bill. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record with their able assistance, admittedly, the petitioners have been working in the Respondent No. 4-Council since the year 2012. 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 em 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 counsel submits that the reliance of the petitioners on the 2016 Act is totally misconceived. Moreover, the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and is not applicable in the instant writ petition and in iew of non availability of sanctioned posts, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Reliance placed by the petitioners on various judgements cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners as the speaking order with respect to ners has been passed and they have not challenged the speaking order. Further, on 11.09.2024, this Court disposed of CWP No.4187 of 2017 titled Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and Others in light of the statement made on behalf of the State of Punjab that it had decided to repeal the 2016 Act and replace it with a new Bill. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record with their able assistance, admittedly, the petitioners have been Council since the year 2012. 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 ignificant time period. Such an approach would be counsel submits that the reliance of the petitioners on the 2016 Act is totally misconceived. Moreover, the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and is not applicable in the instant writ petition and in iew of non availability of sanctioned posts, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Reliance placed by the petitioners on various judgements cannot be applied in the case of the petitioners as the speaking order with respect to ners has been passed and they have not challenged the of CWP in light t had decided to Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record with their able assistance, admittedly, the petitioners have been Council since the year 2012. 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 ployer, 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 ignificant time period. Such an approach would be PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 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 f 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 judgements rendered by the Hon India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. 8. Recently, a Two Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 speaking through Justice Vikram Nath 5 11278-2022(O&M) 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 f 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 judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 speaking through Justice Vikram Nath “11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) t 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 employe 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) ca to justify exploitation through long of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where 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 ’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, 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 oyment 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 violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary inancial 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 Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine 11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed 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 r'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 oyment 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 nnot be deployed as a shield term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 6 11278-2022(O&M) identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with ful present case.... XX XX XX XX 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 inherent 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. XX XX XX XX 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 recurri 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 extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and of ends 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 “adhocism” 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 p over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the 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 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 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 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 in public administration and of ends 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. st necessarily be noted that “adhocism” 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 identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The l force to the 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 ly perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not 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 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 ng Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes in public administration and of ends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, st necessarily be noted that “adhocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must recarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 9. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgements rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for regularization is n limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermi and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer cannot perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s case account of the perennial nature of their long counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co Punjab and others in CWP 7 11278-2022(O&M) 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.” It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgements 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 undermi and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer cannot 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 the perennial nature of their long counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble S Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 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 alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with les 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 (Emphasis supplied) It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgements rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for either accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in 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 cannot perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of the perennial nature of their long-term work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of decided on 26.02.2024. alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with les 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 It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgements rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for either accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while nes equality and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer cannot perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on term work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be Nihal a Division Bench of this Court State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11278 10. In wake of the above discussion and findings, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioner regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 11. Disposed of, accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 10.09.2025 P.C 8 11278-2022(O&M) In wake of the above discussion and findings, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P t No.2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioner regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this Court in State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. wan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. Disposed of, accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : In wake of the above discussion and findings, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by t No.2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, 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. Disposed of, accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No In wake of the above discussion and findings, the present petition is 3) passed by t No.2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to regularise the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed s shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Disposed of, accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document