CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101 CM-9686-CWP-2025 in/& CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision :09.09.2025 Dhan Bahadur and others ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Rishav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners (joined through V.C.) Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent-UOI. Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate for respondent-U.T. Chd. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) CM-9686-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for disposal of the main writ petition in view of the submissions made in the present application. Notice of the application to the respondents. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent-UOI and Ms. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent-U.T. Chandigarh and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as made in the present application. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed. Main writ petition AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -2- is taken up for hearing for its disposal. CWP-22513-2014 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) by which, the claim raised by the petitioners for regularization of their services, has been declined. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the petitioners were appointed with the respondents starting from the year 2002 onwards and as of now, they have 23 years of service to their credit but their services are not being regularized by the respondents only on the ground that they were appointed on contract basis and there is no post available to regularize their services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that in the recent judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.14831-2024 titled as, Jaggo vs. Union of India & others, decided on 20.12.2024; Civil Appeal No.8158-7179 of 2024 titled “Shripal and anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad” decided on 31.01.2025, Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 titled as Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 19.08.2025, it has been held that the State being a welfare State has to look into the fact that where the employees are continuously working for a period of more than two decades, their services need to be regularized even if, the benefit of relaxation in qualification and creation of posts is to be done. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that keeping in view the said judgments as cited hereinbefore, this Court while passing order in AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -3- CWP-26095-2021 titled as U.T. Chandigarh vs. Anju and others decided on 12.08.2025 wherein, the Union Territory, Chandigarh has opposed the similar direction given by the Tribunal to consider the claim of the similarly situated employees for regularization of their services, has already given a direction to regularize the services of the employees working with the Chandigarh Administration. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-U. T. Chandigarh though ,concedes the factum that the petitioners are working for the last more than two decades but submits that as they were working on a contract basis, no right accrues to them to claim the benefit of regularization of service and further in the absence of any regular post available for regularization of their services, the benefit of regularization could not have been given and the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated all the facts and declined the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services hence, the present petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. Firstly, it is to be seen whether the work which the petitioners are performing is needed on regular basis to run the establishment or the same was a stop gap arrangement for a specific purpose to be achieved by the Chandigarh Administration. It may be noticed that the petitioners are working in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh as of now and the job which is being performed by the petitioners is regularly needed as they have been allowed to continue on the post for the last 23 years. It is not the case that for a specific job/work, the AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -4- petitioners were appointed, which job/work has already been performed so as to contend that the services of the petitioners are no more required. It is also conceded fact that regular post of the same nature and designation exists with the Chandigarh Administration wherein employees are appointed and are working. 8. Further, at no stage, the services of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground of non-availability of the work which clearly shows that the job which is being performed by the petitioners such as, Sweeper, Chowkidar & Peon etc. is a continuous job which is needed in the establishment and the regular posts in same also exists and employees are working on said regular posts with the Chandigarh Administration. 9. The question which arises now is, whether any direction can be given to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jaggo (supra); Shri Pal (Supra) as well as in Dharam Singh (supra), has held that the Government is bound to consider the claim of the employee for regularization of his/her services in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1 who had worked for a period of 10 years. 11. In the present case, the petitioners are working and have performed the said duties from the last 23 years, which clearly shows that the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services needs to be considered as per the judgment in Jaggo (supra); Shri Pal (Supra) as well as in Dharam Singh (supra). Relevant paragraph of the judgment in AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -5- Dharam Singh (supra) is as under:- 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 India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 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 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826.5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: “14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -6- fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily- wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India3 in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -7- seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual,"even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances." 12. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has gone to the extent that where there are no posts available, the same should be sanctioned for regularization of service so as to remove the hardship which the employees are facing depsite AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -8- working for the last 23 years. 13. Qua the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no regular sanctioned post available, it may be noticed that the duty to create the post so as to grant benefit is upon the employer. Nothing has come on record to show that the duties which are being performed by the petitioners are not required in the establishment coupled with the fact that the petitioners are continuously working for a period of more than two and a half decades. That being so, as per the judgment in Dharam Singh (supra) even if the posts are to be created by the respondents even then claim of employees are to be considered for regularization of their services. 15. Further, a bare perusal of the order dated 21.08.2000 (Annexure A-2) would show that 21 posts were created for setting up the new school of Nursing (diploma in General Nursing and Midwife) in the General Hospital Sector 16, Chandigarh against which posts the petitioners were appointed. Once, the posts were created and the said nursing school stands transferred to the Government Medical College and Hospital Sector 32, Chandigarh, the said posts also stand transferred to the said institution where the petitioners are working as of now and the salary is being paid to the petitioners on the basis of such created posts hence, it can be safely recorded that the posts exist even as of today for all intent and purposes and the respondents need not to create new posts so as to regularize the services of the petitioners. 16. Further, learned counsel for the U.T. Chandigarh has not been able to deny that while deciding CWP-26095-2021 titled as U.T. Chandigarh vs. Anju and others on 12.08.2025 which also involves the same question of regularization of service on the post of Data Entry AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-22513-2014 (O&M) -9- Operator, who were working for decades, a direction has been issued by this Court to the Chandigarh Administration to consider the case of the employees as per the Judgement in Jaggo (supra) and Shir Pal (supra). That being so, no different order can be passed by the Court in the case of the petitioners in the present petition. 17. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded hereinbefore coupled with the settled principle of law cited hereinbefore, the impugned order dated 30.05.2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Tribunal declining the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services, is set aside especially, in view of the fact that even after passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal, the petitioners are still continuing in service and have rendered service for a period of more than two decades hence, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their service in view the judgments in Jaggo (supra), Shri Pal (supra) as well as in Dharam Singh (supra) and pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 18. 18. Present petition is disposed of in above terms. 19 Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) September 09, 2025 JUDGE aarti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No AARTI SHARMA 2025.09.17 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document