LPA-1811-2025 115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS JITENDER KUMAR CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr for the SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal assails the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby it decided the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner (respondent basis of policy dated 01.10.2003. The learned Single Judge proceeded to take into consideration the view expressed by this Court in Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP for the purpose of directing regularization of the writ petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed in the case of Supreme Court in relation to LPAs decided by th He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 3. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the facts of the present case. We find that it is 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. JITENDER KUMAR **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Saurabh Mohanta, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) This appeal assails the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby it decided the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) in 2004, claiming regularization on the basis of policy dated 01.10.2003. The learned Single Judge proceeded to take into consideration the view expressed by this Court in Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP or the purpose of directing regularization of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed in the case of Ashish Sharma (supra) is under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to LPAs decided by th He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the facts of the present case. We find that it is the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1811-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA . Saurabh Mohanta, DAG, Haryana SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) This appeal assails the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby it decided the writ petition, preferred by the writ herein) in 2004, claiming regularization on the basis of policy dated 01.10.2003. The learned Single Judge proceeded to take into consideration the view expressed by this Court in Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP-2158-2020, or the purpose of directing regularization of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed in is under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to LPAs decided by this Court subsequently. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the facts the case of the respondent that he (O&M) .2025 Appellants . . . . Respondent This appeal assails the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned writ herein) in 2004, claiming regularization on the basis of policy dated 01.10.2003. The learned Single Judge proceeded to Ashish , Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed in is under scrutiny before the Hon’ble is Court subsequently. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the facts dent that he MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1811-2025 was working as a Clerk on daily wage basis since 26.07.2000, and the State had initiated a policy on 01.10.2003 granting regularization to persons who were working on daily wage basis and had completed three years of service as on the date of 4. Admittedly, the respondent had completed three years of service on the date when the policy was introduced, i.e. 01.10.2003. The three years of service was on based on pari (supra) of the judgments passed from time to time by the Supreme Court, lead case being 1034, even if the appellants’ case is that he was working against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization as it is not the case of the State that his services had been discontinued since 2000. 5. Now after almost more than 2 steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003 Jaggo (supra), sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries ensure appointments adhered to is regrettable that its misapplied employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It held that employees in irregular engaged in duly continuously for 2025 (O&M) was working as a Clerk on daily wage basis since 26.07.2000, and the State had initiated a policy on 01.10.2003 granting regularization to persons who were working on daily wage basis and had completed three years of service as on the date of publication of the policy. Admittedly, the respondent had completed three years of service on the date when the policy was introduced, i.e. 01.10.2003. The three years of service was on the post of Clerk. He, therefore, claimed regularization based on parity, independent of the judgment passed in (supra). If we examine the case of the respondent, we find that in terms of the judgments passed from time to time by the Supreme Court, lead case being Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, reported , even if the appellants’ case is that he was working against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization as it is not the case of the State that his services had been discontinued since 2000. Now after almost more than 25 years, it is expected from the State to take steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003, as well as in view of the judgment passed in the case of (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “26. While the judgment in sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the was working as a Clerk on daily wage basis since 26.07.2000, and the State had initiated a policy on 01.10.2003 granting regularization to persons who were working on daily wage basis and had completed three publication of the policy. Admittedly, the respondent had completed three years of service on the date when the policy was introduced, i.e. 01.10.2003. The three years of post of Clerk. He, therefore, claimed regularization , independent of the judgment passed in Ashish Sharma If we examine the case of the respondent, we find that in terms of the judgments passed from time to time by the Supreme Court, lead Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 INSC , even if the appellants’ case is that he was working against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization as it is not the case of the State that his services had been discontinued since 2000. 5 years, it is expected from the State to take steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated as well as in view of the judgment passed in the case of wherein the Supreme Court held as under: 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and constitutional principles, it principles are often misinterpreted or claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically appointments, who were sanctioned posts and had served ore than ten years, should be considered time measure. However, the was working as a Clerk on daily wage basis since 26.07.2000, and the State had initiated a policy on 01.10.2003 granting regularization to persons who were working on daily wage basis and had completed three Admittedly, the respondent had completed three years of service on the date when the policy was introduced, i.e. 01.10.2003. The three years of post of Clerk. He, therefore, claimed regularization Ashish Sharma If we examine the case of the respondent, we find that in terms of the judgments passed from time to time by the Supreme Court, lead in 2024 INSC , even if the appellants’ case is that he was working against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization as it is not the 5 years, it is expected from the State to take steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated as well as in view of the judgment passed in the case of MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1811-2025 laudable intent of the judgment is being institutions rely on its dicta to claims of employees, appointments are not procedural the judgment in right to regularization exists for overlooking the cases application distorts the judgment's effectively weaponizing it rendered it example in providing fair and stable Engaging workers on a periods, especially when organization's international organization to legal challenges and undermines morale. By ensuring fair employment government institutions can re unnecessary litigation, promote job the principles of justice and embody. and sets a positive precedent for the private foll labour practices in the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders High Court and the Tribunal are application is allowed quashed; forthwith and their services 2025 (O&M) laudable intent of the judgment is being institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where t appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that right to regularization exists for overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This application distorts the judgment's effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead example in providing fair and stable Engaging workers on a temporary periods, especially when their roles organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines morale. By ensuring fair employment government institutions can re unnecessary litigation, promote job the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private follow, thereby contributing to the labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when indiscriminately reject the even in cases where their illegal, but merely lack adherence to formalities. Government departments often cite (supra) to argue that no vested temporary employees, ent's explicit acknowledgment of where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, against employees who have indispensable services over decades. ght of these considerations, in our opinion, is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. temporary basis for extended roles are integral to the functioning, not only contravenes labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold fairness that they are meant to aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to ow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the set aside and the original to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularized forthwith. MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1811-2025 However, the appellants shall not be pecuniary benefits/back wages worked for but for post 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed both on merits 7. Application No. accordingly dismissed. 8. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 01.07.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? 2025 (O&M) However, the appellants shall not be pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be post-retiral benefits.” Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed both on merits Application No.CM-4417-LPA-2025 for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any for the period they have not would be entitled to continuity of services the said period and the same would be counted for their Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed both on merits as well as delay. for condonation of delay is All pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No for condonation of delay is MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document