CWP-12937-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 CWP-12937-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.04.2026 Kash Rana and others ....Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Abhishk Singla, Advocate and Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shubham Verma, Advocate for Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the respondents. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as Clerk-cum-Data Entry Operator along with all the consequential benefits as per The Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners have completed more than three years of service as an outsourced employees against the sanctioned posts and they are fully MOHD YAKUB 2026.04.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-12937-2026 2 entitled for regularization under Section 6 of the The Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees' Welfare Act, 2016. Further, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment dated 05.03.2026, passed by this Court in CWP-30248-2028 and connected matters, titled as Harjinder Singh Sidhu vs Municipal Council, Bathinda and another (Annexure P-9). He further submits that the respondents are exploiting the petitioners by continuing them as outsourced employees for more than a decade without regular pay scales, which is an unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioners have rendered satisfactory and unblemished service while discharging their duties. He further contends that the perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The petitioners are neither engaged as a part-time workers nor as a casual labourers and there has been no complaint or adverse remarks against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioners’ continuous engagement on contract/outsource basis is violative of the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and others, 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230, Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 and Shripal and another vs Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC Online (SC) 221, which recognizes the right of MOHD YAKUB 2026.04.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-12937-2026 3 long-serving contractual/outsource employees to be considered for regularization, however, the respondents have failed to take any decision in this regard. Reliance in this regard has also been placed on a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) SCT 354, whereby it has been held that once the legal issue is settled, the respondents cannot compel each and every individual employee to litigate the claim on the similar issue. 2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the instant writ petition of the petitioners is treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision thereof by passing a speaking order. 4. Therefore, in view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent No.2 is directed to treat this writ petition as a comprehensive representation and consider the case of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra), Vinod Kumar’s case (supra), Dharam Singh’s case (supra) and Shripal’s case (supra) and the judgment passed by this Court in Harjinder Singh Sidhu’s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of 03 months from the date of receiving a MOHD YAKUB 2026.04.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-12937-2026 4 certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted to them forthwith by respondent No.2 as per the judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019. 5. Disposed of, accordingly. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.04.2026 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2026.04.30 09:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.