IN TH 221(5 cases) 1. Manak Si State of Pu 2. Amreek S State of Pu 3. Lakha Sin State of Pu 4. Ranjeet Si State of Pu 5. Jaspal Sin State of Pu 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA cases) Date nak Singh and others VERSUS e of Punjab and others reek Singh and others VERSUS e of Punjab and others ha Singh and others VERSUS e of Punjab and others Singh and others VERSUS e of Punjab and others Singh and others VERSUS e of Punjab and others NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH Date of Decision: January 19, 2026 CWP-13015-2021 .....Petitioners SUS .....Responden CWP-13017-2021 .....Petitioners SUS .....Responden CWP-28770-2022 .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden CWP-11818-2023(O&M) .....Petitioners SUS .....Responden CWP-26252-2025(O&M) .....Petitioner SUS .....Responden 2026 ioners ondents ioners ondents itioner ondents ioners ondents itioner ondents PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. writ petitions sake of brevit 2. of the Cons directing the payable to t petitioners as respondents. of equal pay arrears be pa vide which th 3. petitioners h department f ostensibly em 2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab. Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate PUNGRAIN in CWP-26252-202 Mr. M.S. Batth, Advocate for re 28770-2022 and CWP-11818-20 **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispo titions as they arise from a similar fa brevity, the facts are taken from CWP The present writ petition has be Constitution of India seeking issu the respondents to pay the same e to the regular employees, and to ners as watchmen as they have been w dents. Further prayed that the petitione al pay for equal work and their salary be paid and to quash the order date hich the representation for regularizati Learned counsel for the petition ners have been rendering continuo ent for a long duration, with some bly employed through a contractor/ser HARPREET SINGH BRAR vocate with Ms. Anamika Sheoran njab. vocate for respondents No.2 and 5 2025. for respondents No.3 and 4 in CWP 2023. dispose of all the above-mentioned ilar factual matrix. However, for the CWP-13015-2021. has been filed under Article 226/227 g issuance of a writ of mandamus same wages and allowances as are nd to regularize the service of the een working for many years with the titioner may also be given the benefit salary be accordingly refixed and all r dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) arization of service has been declined. etitioners inter alia contends that the ntinuous service to the respondent some engaged since 2008. Though tor/service provider, they work under eoran, 5- CWP- tioned or the 6/227 mus as are f the ith the enefit nd all 15) lined. at the ndent hough under PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the direct c respondents. the contract approximatel the balance. C minimum, wh of the Hon’b Singh and employees c perform full work is pere outsourcing a and constitute (supra), the p allowance. T neither casua policies, the petitioners a departments o 4. policy curre Reference is Temporary, ("the 2016 A 3 rect control, supervision, and adm dents. The respondents pay Rs.14,000 tractor, who in turn disburses only R imately Rs.1,400/- towards Provident ance. Consequently, the petitioners rec um, which is illegal and arbitrary. Reli Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of nd Others, Civil Appeal No. 21 ees cannot be paid less than min full-time, regular duties identical to t s perennial and indispensable to the rcing arrangement reveals a systematic nstitutes discriminatory and arbitrary p , the petitioners are entitled to minim nce. Their service record is unblemis casual nor part-time workers. Despite s, the respondents have resiled from ners and other similarly situated out ents of the Government of Punjab. Per contra, learned counsel for currently exists for considering t nce is made to the Punjab Ad ho rary, Work-charged and Outsourced 016 Act"), which is proposed to be re d administrative authority of the 14,000/- per month per petitioner to nly Rs.8,500/- as wages and deposits vident Fund, unlawfully appropriating ers receive wages below the statutory y. Reliance is placed on the judgment te of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit o. 213 of 2013, which holds that n minimum wages. The petitioners cal to those of regular employees. The to the department’s functioning. The tematic fraud on the public exchequer trary practice. In light of Jagjit Singh minimum wages along with dearness blemished and satisfactory. They are espite the existence of regularization from them to deny benefits to the ed outsourced employees in various el for the respondents submits that no ring the petitioners’ regularization. Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, urced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 o be replaced by a new enactment, as f the ner to posits riating tutory gment agjit s that ioners s. The . The equer ingh arness ey are zation to the arious hat no ation. Wage, 2016 nt, as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document indicated in a contended th and not unde regularization However, lea petitioners performed by 5. identically si Water Supply and governm the principle must be exte Court. 6. record. It tran petitioners h manpower ag wages along Hon’ble Sup reproduced b 4 ed in an affidavit dated 16.08.2018 in ded that the petitioners, being emplo t under any direct contract with the res ization. On this sole ground, dismi er, learned counsel for the responde ners are neither casual nor part-tim ed by them is perennial and indispens In rebuttal, learned counsel fo ally situated employees in other depar Supply, PUNGRAIN) have been regul vernment instructions. It is submitted nciple that a benefit granted to one set e extended to all, without forcing ea I have heard learned counsel f . It transpires that there is no denial of ners have been working as outso wer agency since 2008; and (ii) they along with dearness allowance, contra le Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (s uced below: 57. “Having traversed the leg the application of the principle o relation to temporary employe 018 in CWP No. 4187 of 2017. It is employees of an outsourcing agency the respondents, have no right to seek dismissal of the petition is urged. spondents could not dispute that the time workers and that the work ispensable. sel for the petitioners contends that departments and municipalities (e.g., regularized under the same 2016 Act mitted that the State’s action violates ne set of similarly situated employees cing each individual to approach the nsel for the parties and perused the nial of the following facts that: (i) the outsourced employees through a i) they are not being paid minimum contrary to the law laid down by the h (supra). The relevant extract is e legal parameters with reference to ple of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in loyees (daily-wage employees, ad . It is gency o seek urged. at the work s that (e.g., 6 Act olates loyees ch the ed the (i) the gh a imum by the act is e to ’, in ad- PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 hoc appointees, employees contractual employees and th requires our determination employees (before this Court), and responsibilities, as were employees, holding the sam exercise would require the app the principle of ‘equal pay for in paragraph 42 above. Howeve of the matter is concerned, it is factual position. We say so, beca by the learned counsel represen the temporary employees in the appointed against posts which regular cadre/establishment. It the course of their employme employees were being random and responsibilities, which at so to regular employees. Likewis substantive posts, were also pos which was assigned to temporar There is, therefore, no room for responsibilities discharged by t present set of appeals, were the by regular employees. It is not the respondent-employees did prescribed for appointment on r not the case of the State, that a would not be entitled to pay p summarized by us in paragraph no doubt, that the principle of ‘e be applicable to all the concern to vest in them the right to es appointed on casual basis, d the like), the sole factor that ion is, whether the concerned urt), were rendering similar duties ere being discharged by regular same/corresponding posts. This e application of the parameters of for equal work’ summarized by us wever, insofar as the instant aspect it is not difficult for us to record the because it was fairly acknowledged esenting the State of Punjab, that all the present bunch of appeals, were hich were also available in the t. It was also accepted, that during oyment, the concerned temporary domly deputed to discharge duties at some point in time, were assigned ewise, regular employees holding posted to discharge the same work, orary employees, from time to time. for any doubt, that the duties and by the temporary employees in the the same as were being discharged not the case of the appellants, that did not possess the qualifications on regular basis. Furthermore, it is at any of the temporary employees ay parity, on any of the principles raph 42 hereinabove. There can be of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would cerned temporary employees, so as to claim wages, at par with the asis, that rned uties ular This s of y us pect the ged t all ere the ring rary uties ned ding ork, ime. and the rged that ions it is yees iples n be ould o as the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. Judge Bench State of U.P through Justi 6 minimum of the pay-scale of r employees, holding the same pos 58. In view of the po foregoing paragraph, we have n the concerned temporary empl cases, would be entitled to draw pay-scale (- at the lowest grad extended to regular employees, h 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 of regularly engaged Government e post. e position expressed by us in the ve no hesitation in holding, that all mployees, in the present bunch of draw wages at the minimum of the grade, in the regular pay- scale), ees, holding the same post.” 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 and decades of continuous reliance the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) legal appointments and irregular ot endorse the perpetuation of ere 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 ent the t all h of f the ale), 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 principles articulated therein ap case.… ** ** ** 13. As we have observed in bo (Supra), outsourcing cannot b perpetuate precariousness and practices where the work i 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 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 tention that the appellants are not continue only by virtue of interim dvance 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 think 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. sent ripal d to ent The not erim erim ry of ate's ases f the t the tate t a the ring year its term odes mise lace ess, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. (2024 INSC 8 18. Moreover, it must necessar thrives where administration is must keep and produce accurate rolls and outsourcing arrange with evidence, why they prefe sanctioned posts where the work invoked, the record should considered, why similarly p 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 practice added) 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 osen course aligns with Articles 14, n of India. Sensitivity to the human insecurity is not sentimentality. It is that should inform every decision public 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 urden of unnecessary litigation, phold the principles of justice and nt to embody. This approach aligns s and sets a positive precedent for thereby contributing to the overall ctices in the country.” (emphasis sm” ents ster lain, over t” is ere ated 14, man t is sion asis ndia it is le in on a their only oses oyee ent tion, and igns t for erall phasis PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. long term em nature of the employer, ca have been c period. Such temporary em of India. Rel by the Hon’b India (2024) 2025 SCC On 10. Hon'ble Supr on a contin nature, while "unfair labou long-term tem 11. is a classic Courts. The workforce fo flimsy groun decade witho 9 This Court has been constrain rm employees are engaged on ad ho of the services rendered by them. Th er, cannot be allowed to exploit its te een consistently serving its instrum . Such an approach would be violativ ary employees enshrined in Article 14 a. Reliance in this regard can be plac Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod K 024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & An C OnLine 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 rm 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. strained to observe a trend where d hoc basis, in spite of the perennial em. The State, being a constitutional it its temporary employees when they strumentality for a significant time ative of fundamental rights of the icle 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution e placed on the judgements rendered od Kumar and others v. Union of Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 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 ondemned. o observe that the respondents' action nd denounced by the Constitutional yer, cannot be permitted to exploit a them the security of regularization on scharging their duties for more than a here ennial tional n they t time of the tution dered n of bad y the loyees ennial to an ion of action tional loit a ion on than a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. allowed. The letter dated The responde six weeks fro event of non regularized u shall also be per judgmen No.2371 of 2 No.1892 of 2 13. of. January 19 P.C 10 In view of the above, all five he rejection of the representatio ated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P-15), is u spondents are directed to regularize th eks from the date of receipt of the cer of non-compliance, the petitioners s ized upon the expiry of the said perio lso be entitled to counting of their pas dgments of this Court in Harbans L of 2010 and State of Haryana and of 2019. Pending miscellaneous applicati ry 19, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : five present petitions are hereby ntation made by the petitioner vide 5), is unsustainable in the eyes of law. rize the petitioners, within a period of the certified copy of this order. In the ners shall be deemed to have been period of six weeks. The petitioners eir past services and other benefits as ns Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA plication, if any, also stands disposed (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No ereby r vide f law. iod of In the been ioners fits as WP LPA posed RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document