1 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243+251 Date of decision: 05.03.2026 1. CWP-30248-2025 Harjinder Singh Sidhu ....Petitioner VERSUS Municipal Council, Bathinda and another ...Respondents 2. CWP-38707-2025 Suresh Kumar ..Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Bathinda and another …Respondents 3. CWP-5998-2026 Harvinder Singh ..Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Bathinda and another …Respondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Abhishek Singla with Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocates for the respondents in CWP- 30248-2025. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate with Mr. Arjun Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents in CWP-38707-2025. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents in CWP- 5998-2026. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. This common judgment shall dispose of all the aforementioned petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-30248-2025. 2. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Clerk-Cum-Data Entry Operator and grant all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, seniority, and promotion, since he has been working on the said post for the last 15 years, without any break in service, against a vacant sanctioned post. CONTENTIONS 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is a well-qualified employee with a graduation, a Post-Graduate diploma in Computer Applications as well as a Master’s degree in Computer Applications. He was initially appointed as a Data Entry Operator through PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters an outsourcing agency on 07.05.2010 (Annexure P-2). Vide order dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure P-3), he was posted in the office of the Legal Advisor, Health Department, Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. He further submits that although the service provider i.e. the outsourcing agency through which the petitioner was hired, changed over the years i.e. in 2012, 2014, and 2019, the petitioner continued to serve the respondent-Municipal Corporation on the same post, without any break in service. Thus, he has been discharging work of perennial nature for the respondent-Municipal Corporation for over 15 years. Further, the petitioner has been contributing towards the Employees’ Provident Fund from his salary since the year 2010. As such, it is evident that the petitioner, though initially appointed through the outsourcing agencies, has essentially been an employee of the respondent-Municipal Corporation. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been serving against a sanctioned post. He further pointed out that as per the budget for the year 2025–26, out of 76 sanctioned posts of Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator, 40 posts are lying vacant. Further still, the petitioner is also eligible for regularization under Section 3 of The Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2016”), as he had completed three years of service before the Act of 2016 came into force. Moreover, similarly situated employees, appointed as Firemen and Drivers in the year 2013, were regularized vide resolution dated 08.05.2017, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters which was subsequently approved by the State Government. Despite submitting representations dated 05.05.2017 and 30.10.2021 (Annexures P-4 and P8, respectively), the claim of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered. Placing reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India 2025 AIR SC 296 , Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India and others (2024) 9 SCC 327, and Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, learned counsel contends that the State, especially in its role as a model employer, is duty bound to ensure that the workers employed by it are provided fair and stable employment, where they do not face any exploitation. Not only is this such an approach necessary for smooth functioning of the relevant employer-organisation but it also ensures that the workers are adequately compensated for the service provided by them. Thus, considering that the petitioner has rendered uninterrupted service of 15 years, he cannot be deprived of the fruits of his labour, merely because his initial appointment was through an outsourcing agency. Further, the factual matrix makes it evident that the petitioner has served the respondent- Municipal Corporation akin to its regular employees and therefore, he must be considered for regularisation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the vires of the Act of 2016 were challenged before this Court in CWP No. 4187 of 2017 titled as Anika Gupta v. State of Punjab and others. He further argues that the Government of Punjab filed an affidavit dated 16.08.2018 in PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters Anika Gupta (supra) which clearly stated that the Act of 2016 has been repealed by it and shall be replaced with a new bill, which is currently under process. Thus, the Act of 2016 was never implemented and therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke it to claim benefit of regularisation. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed through an outsourcing agency and as such, he cannot claim parity with the contractual Firemen and Drivers of the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, who had moved CWP No. 11106 of 2021 before this Court. Moreover, the Government of Punjab does not have a policy which allows for regularisation of outsourced employees. As such, there is no vested right in the petitioner to claim regularisation and accordingly, the present writ petition deserves dismissal. OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondent-Municipal Corporation through an outsourcing agency in the year 2010.  Employer-Employer Relationship 7. It appears that the outsourcing agencies through which the petitioner was engaged kept changing over the years. In spite of a change in outsourcing agencies in the years 2012, 2014 and 2019, the petitioner continued to work as a Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator with the respondent- Municipal Corporation, without any break in service since the year 2010 till PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters date, uninfluenced by the said change. Further, the respondent- Municipal Corporation has issued Experience Certificate dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-9) to the petitioner, acknowledging the qualitative service rendered by him since 07.10.2010. The factum of issuance of Experience Certificate (Annexure P-9) to the petitioner by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, and not the outsourcing agency through which he was engaged, is indicative of an employer-employee relationship between them. 8. At this juncture, it may be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by a four-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra 1956 INSC 71, wherein, speaking through Justice N.H. Bhagwati, the following was observed: “14. The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the prima facie test for the determination of the relationship between master and servant is the existence of the fight in the master to supervise and control the work done by the servant not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work, or to borrow the words of Lord Uthwatt at page 23 in Mercy Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd., 1947-1 AC 1, at p. 23. "The proper test is whether or not the hirer had authority to control the manner of execution of the act in question."” Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgement rendered the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mktg. Soc. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 INSC 89. PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters 9. Further, three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Tezhilali Union 1978 INSC 118, speaking through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, opined as follows: “5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the worker's subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half- hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Arts, 38-39-42, 43 and 43- A of the Constitution. The court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances. 6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken off.” 10. A conjoint reading of Dharangadhara Chemical Works (supra) and Hussainbhai (supra) indicates that in order to establish an employer-employee relationship, emphasis must be on the substance of the arrangement rather than its form. As such, the primary test to determine PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters existence of an employer-employee relationship is- whether the principal employer exercises control and supervision, not only over the work assigned to the employee but also the manner of its execution. Additionally, the Courts must also examine if the livelihood and continued employment of the employee are substantially dependent upon the principal employer. As such, where the situation satisfies the aforementioned parameters, the Court is required to lift the veil of contractual arrangements to discern the real nature of the relationship and not be misled by the ‘legal appearances and documents.’ An arrangement structured through dubious intermediaries or layered contractual devices, cannot be allowed to defeat the reality of employment. Therefore, if, upon overall assessment, the principal entity is found to have continuous and effective engagement with the workman, the law disregards such intermediaries as mere conduits and recognizes the principal employer as the true employer. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the respondent- Municipal Corporation exercises effective control and supervision over the petitioner’s work. Notwithstanding the periodic change of outsourcing agencies in the years 2012, 2014 and 2019, the consistent presence of the respondent- Municipal Corporation as the principal entity, coupled with the shifting nature of the intermediaries, clearly demonstrates that such agencies were merely conduits or paper arrangements. Thus, upon lifting the veil of the contractual/outsource arrangement in the present case, it is revealed that the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters real employer-employee relationship subsists between the petitioner and the respondent- Municipal Corporation, rendering the intermediary agencies inconsequential in the eyes of law. 12. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal 2011 (1) SCC 635, where the contract between the principal employer and the contractor is found to be a sham, nominal or a mere camouflage to deny employment benefits, the industrial adjudicator is empowered to treat the workman as a direct employee of the principal employer. In the present case, the continuous engagement of the petitioner with the respondent – Municipal Corporation, independent of the outsourcing agency, and the element of control and supervision exercised by it clearly indicates that the outsourcing arrangement was, in effect, a sham contract which merits piercing the dubious veil of such intermediary agencies. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgement rendered by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers 2001 (7) SCC 1, which while speaking through Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri observed as under, “106. An analysis of the cases, discussed above, shows that they fall in three classes : (i) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the Industrial adjudicator/Court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment was ordered; (ii) where the contract was found to be sham and nominal rather a camouflage in which PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters case the contract labour working in the establishment of the principal employer was held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the principal employer himself. Indeed, such cases do not relate to abolition of contract labour but present instances wherein the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct position as a fact at the stage after employment of contract labour stood prohibited; (iii) where in discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of a contractor and the courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be the employees of the principal employer.” (Emphasis supplied)  Application of Act of 2016 13. Clearly, the petitioner is an outsourced employee. However, before delving further into the matter, it must be clarified that after considering similar arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the Act of 2016, this Court in Akash Sharma v. State of Punjab and others in CWP No.12434 of 2023 decided on 13.02.2026 has categorically held that the said Act still has the force of law. The relevant part thereof is reproduced below: “27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the questions framed above are answered in the following terms: a. ‘The Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016’ has not been repealed and continues to remain in full force. Since ‘The Punjab Protection and Regularization of Contractual Employees Bill, 2021’ never attained the assent of the Governor of Punjab, it cannot be said to have the force of law and Section 14 thereof, cannot be considered to have repealed the Act of 2016. Needless to say, any person eligible for the benefits as granted by the Act of 2016 must be extended the same. Accordingly, the Act of 2016 continues to hold the field.” PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters 14. Moving on, a study of Section 6 of the Act of 2016 is called for, which reads as follows: “Section 6. The outsourced employees recruited through private man power agency in the service of the State Government or its entities and working for a continuous period of not less than three years preceding the date of coming into force of this Act shall be taken on contract on yearly basis by the competent authority in such service of the State Government or its entities, subject to the following conditions, namely:- (a) fulfil the eligibility with regard to minimum and maximum age limit; (b) possess requisite educational qualification and experience as specified for the post under the service rules at the time of initial appointment; (c) satisfactory verification of antecedents; (d) have good character and conduct; and (e) have not been indicted or undergoing any civil, criminal or departmental proceedings: Provided that the entities of the State shall consider such contracts only if such entity is in a financial position to take the burden of such contract on its own without transferring any liability to the State exchequer.” 15. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provision reflects that an outsourced employee who has worked continuously for a period of three years, prior to the commencement of the Act, shall be engaged on a yearly contractual basis by the competent authority. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working with the respondent-Municipal Corporation since the year PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters 2010, while the Act of 2016 came into force on 24.12.2016. Therefore, at the time of commencement of the Act of 2016, the petitioner had already completed three years of service as an outsourced employee. As such, the petitioner was entitled to be taken on contract basis by the respondent- Municipal Corporation. This vested right of the petitioner was crystallised on 24.12.2016 i.e. the date of commencement of the Act of 2016. Consequently, this Court finds it appropriate to consider the petitioner to be a contractual employee of the respondent-Municipal Corporation w.e.f. 24.12.2016. 16. Since the petitioner has been deemed to be a contractual employee since 24.12.2016, he deserves to be considered for regularisation on account of his long service i.e. over 10 years as well as the perennial nature of his work. On that note, 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters 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 Jaggo (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra) and Shripal (supra). 17. 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 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters 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 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 “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)  Outsourcing as an evasion tactic 18. The common practice of bypassing the regular recruitment process and resorting to outsourcing, in spite of availability of sanctioned PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters vacant posts, is itself is reflective of the intention of the employers to escape financial liability that comes with it. Considering that employees are expected to discharge the same perennial duties, it is rather unsavory to deprive them of the fruits of their labour including pay scales, increments etc. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by Lrs 2011 INSC 632, has made the following observations in this regard: “5. Labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However, this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the concerned workmen are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a contractor, or that they are merely daily wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the work of regular employees. 6. This Court cannot countenance such practices any more. Globalization/liberalization in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. Outsourcing cannot be allowed to metamorphose into a convenient veil to sidestep fair engagement practices. Where the principal employer exercises control and supervision over the manner of work, and the worker's livelihood is substantially dependent on the principal employer, the Courts must endeavour to look beyond the façade by lifting the veil created by the intermediaries and declare the principal employer as the employer in fact. Further still, the State, being a constitutional employer, cannot balance its budget on the backs of temporary, contractual, or PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters outsourced employees. In no uncertain terms, it is emphasised that the State does not get the license to override constitutional safeguards merely for the reason of financial stringency. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India rep by Government of Puducherry and another v. K. Velajagan and others in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2868/2018, while upholding the regularization of temporary employees, ordered a vigilance inquiry to investigate into engagement of staff on ad hoc basis while sanctioned posts remained vacant. The relevant part thereof is reproduced below: “5. Out of 51 sanctioned posts of lecturers in the Polytechnic College, 45 posts are being manned by incumbents appointed on ad hoc basis. Of these 45 incumbent lecturers, 15 of them had earlier moved the Tribunal and had obtained orders for regularization of their services. Such order was upheld by the High Court. Union of India had approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in a special leave petition. This Court did not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and disposed of the said special leave petition on 19th February, 2007 directing as follows: “On merits, the petitioners, in our opinion, have no good case. We have already noticed the prayer asked for by the respondents before the Tribunal and perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in our opinion directed the petitioners herein to frame a scheme for regular absorption of all casual lecturers or consider all the casual lecturers for appointment on a regular basis at the time of making regular appointments. The said direction is ratified by the High Court. In our opinion, no case is made out for interference with the direction issued by the Tribunal to frame a scheme and also as affirmed by the High Court. In fact, it is brought to our notice by Mr. R. Mohan, learned ASG that the recruitment rules have already been framed and the same have already been published in the Supplement to the Gazette No. 42, of the 17th October 2006. Since the direction 6 SLP (Civil) CC No. 7374/2006 3 SLP(C) No. 2868/2018 issued by the Tribunal has already been complied with, there is nothing further survives in this Special PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters Leave Petition to be adjudicated upon. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. “ 6. It is rather unfortunate that despite the aforesaid order of this Court passed in the year 2007, full compliance thereof is yet to see the light of the day. The services of the said 15 incumbent lecturers, who were appointed years back, are yet to be regularized because the Union Public Service Commission has declined to accede to the request of the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry made in this behalf, raising a plea that the UPSC would not be a party to any illegal appointee being regularized in service. Audacious indeed, considering that an order of this Court is subsisting till date. xxx xxx xxx 13. We, however, do not wish to allow the matter rest here. In the matter of public employment, the Government is bound to appoint the best available talent upon issuing advertisements and inviting applications from interested candidates. The manner in which ad hoc lecturers have been appointed in the Polytechnic College by the Government of Puducherry even after the 2006 Rules were introduced warrants an in-depth inquiry to find out who was responsible for such illegal appointments. We, accordingly, direct the Central Vigilance Commission to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the matter and submit a report fixing responsibility on the person(s) responsible (either in service or having demitted office) for such large-scale illegality in the matter of appointment of ad hoc lecturers. Such report shall be placed before this Court on 14th May, 2025.” (Emphasis supplied) 20. On that note, an individual who has been engaged on outsource-basis, for a substantial period, inevitably acquires the requisite skill set and efficiency for the job. Such a worker is likely to commit fewer errors as he possess a deeper understanding of the nature of work. Thus, the cause of such employees ought not to be abandoned by the Courts. CONCLUSION 21. In view of the discussion above, it is clear that not only is the petitioner an academically well-qualified individual but he has also acquired PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CWP-30248-2025 and two connected matters an experience of over 15 years, working directly with the respondent- Municipal Corporation. Considering the petitioner is otherwise qualified and has acquired the requisite skill-set and experience to best serve the interest of his employer- Municipal Corporation, reason and justice dictate that his services be regularized, especially since he was engaged on outsource-basis in spite of availability of vacant sanctioned posts. 22. Accordingly, all the aforementioned writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners within six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within 6 weeks from today, they shall be deemed to be regularized. 23. Registry is directed to place a photocopy of this order on the paper-books of the connected matters. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE March 05, 2026 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.04.10 18:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document