CWP-24673 IN TH 107+238 Bhupesh Kum Punjab Healt CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution for quashing case of petiti terms of po (Annexure P the case of p Court in CW CWP-23027 others. Furth 1 673-2025 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o sh Kumar and others VERSUS Health System Corporation and anoth HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr.Bikramjit S. Patwalia, Advo Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been fil tution of India praying for issuance of ashing the order dated 06.08.2025 (A f petitioners have been rejected for re of policies dated 18.03.2011 (An ure P-6) despite the fact that the said e of petitioners is covered in terms of CWP-11427-2015, Sukhjad Singh 027-2016, Gurmit Kaur and other rther, praying for issuance of a w NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-24673-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 12, 2026 ....Petitioner SUS another ...Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate with Mr. Harpreet Singh, vocate for respondent No.1. een filed under Article 226/227 of the ce of a writ in the nature of certiorari 25 (Annexure P-14) vide which the for regularization of their services in (Annexure P-5) and 17.11.2011 said issue no longer res integra and rms of the judgment rendered by this ingh Versus State of Punjab and thers Versus State of Punjab and of a writ in the nature of mandamus 2026 ioners ondents Singh, of the rari ch the ces in .2011 ra and y this and and mus PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 directing the consequentia 2. petitioners h contractual b of uninterrup the year 201 declaring and regular sanc pursuant to qualifications service. In fu another set o issued, where regularization Boards/Corpo Government contention o instructions, they had com of the said discriminator the petitioner 2 673-2025 g the respondents to regularize the uential benefits w.e.f. 2011. Learned counsel for the petition ers have been engaged by respon tual basis. All the petitioners have re terrupted service. It is submitted that ar 2011, formulated a policy dated ng and intimating that all those emplo sanctioned posts on a contractual nt to a due selection process a cations, would be regularized upon . In furtherance of the aforesaid polic r set of instructions dated 17.11.202 whereby the State of Punjab decide ization policy even to the /Corporations/Commissions under the ment of Punjab, as is discernible tion of learned counsel that, in te tions, the claim of the petitioners was d completed more than 10 years of se said instructions. However, in inatory manner, the respondents faile itioners, whereas as many as 315 emp e the service of petitioners with all etitioners, inter alia, contends that the respondent No.1–Corporation on a ave rendered between 14 to 24 years ed that the Government of Punjab, in dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-5), employees who were working against ractual basis, having been selected ess and fulfilling the prescribed upon completion of three years of d policy/instructions (Annexure P-5), 11.2021 (Annexure P-6) came to be decided to extend the benefit of the the employees working in der the administrative control of the nible from Annexure P-6. It is the in terms of the aforesaid policy rs was squarely covered, inasmuch as s of service as on the date of issuance r, in a completely arbitrary and ts failed to regularize the services of 15 employees engaged by respondent ith all at the on a years jab, in 5), gainst lected ibed ars of 5), to be of the in of the is the policy uch as uance and ces of ndent PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 No.1–Corpor situated, were petitioners, t action of the also hit by A order dated 2 Operators po petitioners, w indispensable have not bee covered by th ratio of law Sukhjad Ve (Annexure P rendered in this Court in Sukhjad Sin judgment wa dismissing th for the peti (Annexure P 1996 was i Government conditions of 3 673-2025 orporation on a contractual basis, wh d, were regularized vide order dated 2 ers, thus, have been singled out fo of the respondents is not only in viola t by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit ated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-7) wo ors posted at the Head Office w ers, who are performing duties pere nsable services in hospitals owned b ot been regularized. The case of th d by the policies dated 18.03.2011 an f law culled out by this Hon’ble Co Versus State of Punjab and o ure P-8). The intra-court appeal p ed in Sukhjad’s case (supra) was dism ourt in LPA-516-2020 titled State o Singh and others, decided on 28.0 nt was further affirmed by the H sing the Special Leave Petition filed e petitioners further refers to the ure P-1), vide which the Punjab He was implemented, and submits th ment of the “State of Punjab.” Further ons of service of the Managing Direc is, who were identically and similarly ated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-7). The out for hostile discrimination. Such n violation of their own policy but is onstitution of India. A perusal of the 7) would reveal that even Computer ice were regularized, whereas the s perennial in nature and rendering ned by the Government of Punjab, of the petitioners is also squarely 11 and 17.11.2021, as well as by the le Court in CWP-11427-2015 titled d others, decided on 19.12.2018 eal preferred against the judgment as dismissed by a Division Bench of ate of Punjab and others Versus n 28.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), which the Hon’ble Supreme Court while filed there against. Learned counsel the notification dated 18.04.1996 ab Health Systems Corporation Act, its that Section 2(e) defines the urther, the salary and other terms and Director and other employees of the ilarly ). The Such but is of the puter s the dering unjab, uarely by the titled .2018 gment ch of rsus which while unsel .1996 Act, s the s and of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 Corporation a obligated to d and sustained under Sectio rights, and o hospitals, alo Corporation o 3. Government respondent appointment that the petit are serving maintained b through a preparation Committee. criteria. It is Welfare, Pu recommended services of th and selfless s period. A p 4 673-2025 ation are governed by Section 4 thereo ed to defray expenses and ensure bett stained improvement of dispensaries Section 10. Section 12 further prov and obligations in relation to such ls, along with governmental obligat ation on mutually agreed terms and co It is, thus, contended that for ment of Punjab exercises complet dent No.1-Corporation. Learned co tment orders of some of the petitione e petitioners were appointed as Medic rving in different hospitals across ined by the Government of Punjab. h a transparent recruitment proce ation of merit, and selection by ittee. Admittedly, the petitioners fu . It is further submitted that the Dir e, Punjab, vide proposal dated 1 ended to the Government of Pun s of the petitioners, acknowledging t lfless services rendered, particularly d . A perusal of Annexure P-15 m thereof. Moreover, the Corporation is re better upkeep, hygienic conditions, saries and hospitals, as contemplated r provides that all assets, liabilities, such dispensaries and non-teaching obligations, stand transferred to the and conditions. at for all intents and purposes, the mplete administrative control over ed counsel further refers to the titioners (Annexure P-4) and submits Medical Laboratory Technicians and across various districts owned and unjab. The petitioners were selected process, after due advertisement, by the competent District Level ers fulfill the prescribed eligibility he Directorate of Health and Family ated 16.12.2021 (Annexure P-15), f Punjab the regularization of the g their indispensable contribution larly during the COVID-19 pandemic 15 makes it evident that 30 Lab tion is itions, plated ilities, ching to the s, the over o the bmits s and and lected ment, Level ibility amily 15), f the bution demic Lab PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 Technicians w of the Health the Punjab H highlighted t Technician G Punjab, are ly (Annexure P services of th 4. Court in CWP and others V well as the ju State of Jha others Versu It is submitte has considere and has autho be arbitrarily nature of the against sanc 5. the petitioner this Court in 5 673-2025 cians were appointed through proper c ealth Department in compliance with jab Health Systems Corporation, after hted therein that nearly 300 regular cian Grade-II in the Department of , are lying vacant. Reference is also m ure P-16), whereby a similar prop s of the petitioners was forwarded. Learned counsel further relies up n CWP-23027-2016 and connected ma ers Versus State of Punjab and oth the judgments of the Hon’ble Suprem harkhand and others, 2026 INSC ersus High Court of Judicature at bmitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Co nsidered the principles of equity and s authoritatively held that long-serving itrarily denied regularization merely of their engagement, particularly wh sanctioned posts and have rendered pr Per contra, learned counsel for itioners are outsourced employees; as urt in Sukhjad’s case (supra) would n roper channel against sanctioned posts e with the outsourcing policy rules of n, after public advertisement. It is also egular posts of Medical Laboratory of Health and Family Welfare, also made to another communication r proposal for regularization of the lies upon the judgment passed by this ted matters titled Mrs. Gurmeet Kaur d others, decided on 24.09.2024, as upreme Court in Bhola Nath Versus INSC 99, and Ratnak Mishra and e at Allahabad, 2026 AIR SC 115 me Court, in the aforesaid decisions, y and fairness in public employment serving contractual employees cannot erely on the basis of the contractual rly when they have been appointed ered prolonged service. sel for respondent No. 1 submits that es; as such, the judgment rendered by ould not be applicable to the present posts les of is also ratory elfare, cation f the y this aur 24, as rsus and 115. isions, yment annot actual ointed ts that red by resent PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 case. Relianc Supreme Cou Others, 2022 the services quashed and autonomous received from projects. As outsourced e never appoin post, nor we counsel for r vide order d contractual e regularized in 6. through the c 350 employe cabinet in (Annexure P 6 673-2025 eliance has been placed upon the ju e Court in State of Gujarat and O 2022 (5) SCC 394, wherein the direc vices of temporary employees by cre d and set aside. Moreover, the mous body, and the petitioners are d from time to time under the Nat s. As such, merely on the basis of rced employees cannot be regularized appointed by respondent No. 1-Corp were they treated as contractual l for respondent No. 1 is not in a pos rder dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure P tual employees, who are similarly si ized in terms of the policy dated 19.11 I have heard the learned coun h the case file with their able assistanc ployees were regularized in terms in its meeting held on 19.11.2011 ure P-7) may reads as under:- “In compliance of the d meeting held on 19.11.2011 con vide their memo No.1/62/11/2H the judgment passed by the Hon’ble d Others versus R.J. Pathan and e direction issued for regularization of by creating supernumerary posts was the respondent-Corporation is an s are being paid from user charges National Health Mission and other sis of length of service, temporary larized. Further, the petitioners were Corporation against any sanctioned actual employees. However, learned a position to controvert the fact that, xure P-7), a total number of 350 arly situated to the petitioners, were 19.11.2011. d counsel for the parties and gone sistance. It transpires that a number of terms of the decision taken by the 1.2011. The order dated 23.12.2011 the decision of the Cabinet in its conveyed by the State Government /2HB4/3476 dated 29.11.2011 read on’ble and ion of ts was is an arges other orary were tioned arned t that, f 350 were gone ber of y the .2011 its ent read PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 7. indicating th continuous se Sr. No. Pe 1 Bh 2 Su 3 Kh Pr 4 Ha 5 Pa 6 De 7 Am 8 Ma 9 Re 10 Ra 11 Di 7 673-2025 with the advice of the Fina 4FE2/1937 dated 19.11.2011, t employees (category wise deta hereby regularized in the PHSC decision. 2. Since these employ PHSC itself, their pay and emo to the Government side. 3. Orders as to the pla wise are being separately issued The details regarding the ap ing their respective dates of joining ous service rendered by them, are tabu Petitioners Date of Join Bhupesh Kumar 3.11.2001 Sukhwinder Kumar 5.11.2001 Khushwant Prabhakr 3.4.2002 Harinder Singh 30.4.2002 Pankaj Goyal 30.4.2002 Deepak Kumar 2.11.2001 Amanpreet Kaur 19.1.2011 Mandeep Singh 2.5.2022 Reetu Bala 30.6.2011 Ranjit Kaur 10.8.2011 Dinesh 1.1.2008 Finance Department No.7/203/11 11, the services of 350 contractual details enclosed as Annexure are HSC from the date of the Cabinet ployees are being regularized in the emoluments will not be transferred e placement in pay-scales, category sued.” he appointment of the petitioners, joining and the number of years of re tabulated as under:- f Joining Years continuously working 24 years 24 years 23 years 23 years 23 years 24 years 14 years 23 years 14 years 14 years 17 years /11- tual are inet the rred gory oners, ars of usly PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 8. already cons observations 8 673-2025 Moreover, the issued regardi considered by this Court in Gurm ations made therein reads as under:- 7. Learned counsel fo before this Court that in case, th case (supra) is modified or set Court of India, the same can petitioners as well without ther present order. 8. With regard to t counsel for the respondents that of the outsourcing agency, it ma outsourcing agency is also a G a private institution and the pe the State Exchequer, the resp objection that the petitione outsourcing agency especially 2013, the petitioners were th department of the Forest D rendered 9 years of service as of 9. Keeping in view th are also disposed of in terms of with the condition that in case, t set aside by the Hon’ble Suprem be ipso facto made applicable up being any appeal preferred by th egarding ‘outsource employees’ is urmeet Kaur’s case (supra). The el for the petitioners has undertaken e, the judgment in Sukhjad Singh’s set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme can be made applicable upon the there being any appeal against the to the contention of the learned hat the petitioners were employees it may be noticed that once, the said a Government undertaking and not e petitioners were being paid from respondent cannot take the said ioners were appointed through ally when, starting from the year e the direct appointees with the t Department, Punjab and have as of now. w the above, the present petitions s of Sukhjad Singh’s case (supra) se, the said judgment is modified or preme Court of India, the same will le upon the petitioners without their by the respondents.” is The aken gh’s eme the t the rned yees said not from said ugh year the have ions pra) d or will their PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 9. Judge Bench State of U.P through Justi 9 673-2025 Considering the issue related to Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i U.P. and Another (2025 SCC OnL h Justice Vikram Nath has held as follo “11. Furthermore, it must be cl by the High Court on Uma appellants is misplaced. Unlike before us is not an invitation scheme of public employment. arbitrary refusals to sanction po acknowledgement of need and on the very workforce. On the draws a distinction between ille engagements and does not precarious employment where and the State has failed, for ye Recent decisions of this Court in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, G cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) to justify exploitation through l of outsourcing as a proxy, or th identical duties are exacted principles articulated therein ap case.… ** ** ** 13. As we have observed in bo (Supra), outsourcing cannot b perpetuate precariousness and practices where the work i ated to outsourced employees, a two ourt in Dharam Singh and Others v. OnLine SC 1735), while speaking as follows: e clarified that the reliance placed madevi (Supra) to non-suit the like Umadevi (Supra), the challenge ation to bypass the constitutional ent. It is a challenge to the State's n posts despite the employer's own nd decades of continuous reliance the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) illegal appointments and irregular ot endorse the perpetuation of the work itself is permanent r years, to put its house in order. rt in Jaggo v. Union of India and in , Ghaziabad have emphatically pra) cannot be deployed as a shield gh long-term “ad hocism”, the use or the denial of basic parity where ted over extended periods. The n apply with full force to the present n both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal ot become a convenient shield to and to sidestep fair engagement rk is inherently perennial. The a two rs v. aking aced the enge onal ate's own ance pra) ular of nent der. d in ally ield use here The sent ripal d to ent The PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 10 673-2025 Commission's further contentio “full-time” employees but cont orders also does not advan protection was granted precisely engagement and the pendency refusals. It neither creates righ entitlements that may arise upo legality of those refusals. ** ** ** 17. Before concluding, we think State (here referring to both governments) is not a mere constitutional employer. It ca backs of those who perform t public functions. Where work after year, the establishment m sanctioned strength and engage extraction of regular labour un confidence in public administr of equal protection. Financial s in public policy, but it is not a t reason and the duty to organise 18. Moreover, it must necessar thrives where administration is must keep and produce accurate rolls and outsourcing arrange with evidence, why they prefer sanctioned posts where the work invoked, the record should s considered, why similarly p tention that the appellants are not continue only by virtue of interim vance their case. That interim cisely because of the long history of ncy of the challenge to the State's rights that did not exist nor erases upon a proper adjudication of the hink it necessary to recall that the both the Union and the State mere market participant but a t cannot balance budgets on the rm the most basic and recurring ork recurs day after day and year ent must reflect that reality in its gagement practices. The long-term r under temporary labels corrodes nistration and of ends the promise ial stringency certainly has a place t a talisman that overrides fairness, nise work on lawful lines. ssarily be noted that “ad-hocism” n is opaque. The State Departments rate establishment registers, muster ngements, and they must explain, refer precarious engagement over work is perennial. If “constraint” is ld show what alternatives were y placed workers were treated not erim erim ry of ate's ases f the t the tate t a the ring year its term odes mise lace ess, sm” ents ster lain, over t” is ere ated PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 10. (2024 INSC 11. term employe of the service cannot be all consistently s 11 673-2025 differently, and how the chosen 16 and 21 of the Constitution of consequences of prolonged inse a constitutional discipline that affecting those who keep publi supplied) Further reliance may be placed SC 1034), where the Hon’ble Supre “27. In light of these conside imperative for government depa providing fair and stable emplo temporary basis for extended roles are integral to the organ contravenes international labo the organization to legal challen morale. By ensuring fair empl institutions can reduce the bur promote job security, and upho fairness that they are meant to with international standards an the private sector to follow, the betterment of labour practices in This Court has been constrained mployees are engaged on adhoc basis services rendered by them. The State, b be allowed to exploit its temporary e ently serving its instrumentality for a s osen course aligns with Articles 14, n of India. Sensitivity to the human insecurity is not sentimentality. It is that should inform every decision ublic offices running.” (Emphasis placed on Jaggo vs. Union of India Supreme Court held: siderations, in our opinion, it is departments to lead by example in ployment. Engaging workers on a ded periods, especially when their rganization's functioning, not only labour standards but also exposes allenges and undermines employee employment practices, government burden of unnecessary litigation, phold the principles of justice and t to embody. This approach aligns s and sets a positive precedent for , thereby contributing to the overall es in the country.” (emphasis added) trained to observe a trend where long basis, in spite of the perennial nature State, being a constitutional employer, rary employees when they have been for a significant time period. Such an 14, man It is sion is ndia it is le in on a their only oses oyee ent tion, and igns t for erall dded) e long nature loyer, been ch an PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 approach wo employees en Reliance in t Hon’ble Sup (2024) 1 SCR SCC OnLine 12. Hon'ble Supr on a continuo nature, while "unfair labou long-term tem 13. is a classic Courts. The workforce fo flimsy groun decades with 14. Order dated and set aside within a perio this order. In 12 673-2025 ch would be violative of fundame ees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 2 ce in this regard can be placed on th le Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. N Line SC 221. The legal landscape on this issu e Supreme Court and this court that the ontinuous contractual basis for years while denying them the benefits of pe labour practice". The culture of "ad temporary employees must be cond This Court is constrained to obse lassic example of the very trend de . The State, as a model employer, ca rce for a decade and then deny them t grounds. The petitioners are discharg without being regularised. In view of the above, the present dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-14) is t aside. The respondents are directed a period of six weeks from the date of er. In the event of non-compliance, th ndamental rights of the temporary and 21 of the Constitution of India. on the judgements rendered by the ar and others v. Union of India . v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 is issue has been crystallized by the that the practice of keeping employees years to perform work of a perennial s of permanent service, amounts to an f "ad-hocism" and the exploitation of e condemned. o observe that the respondents' action nd denounced by the Constitutional yer, cannot be permitted to exploit a them the security of regularization on ischarging their duties for more than resent writ petition is hereby allowed. is unsustainable in the eyes of law irected to regularize the petitioners, date of receipt of the certified copy of nce, the petitioners shall be deemed to orary India. y the ndia 025 y the loyees ennial to an ion of action tional loit a ion on e than owed. of law oners, py of ed to PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-24673 have been re petitioners sh benefits as pe CWP No.237 LPA No.189 Punjab and o 15. of. February 12 P.C 13 673-2025 een regularized upon the expiry of the ers shall also be entitled to counting s as per judgments of this Court in H o.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryan .1892 of 2019 or Amrish Sharma and others, CWP-19238 of 2013, as Pending miscellaneous applicati 12, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : of the said period of six weeks. The nting of their past services and other Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, ryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, arma and others Versus State of as the case may be. plication, if any, also stands disposed (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No s. The other jab, wan, e of posed RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.19 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document