CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 1 103+295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.04.2026 Harjeet Singh and others ...Applicant-petitioner(s) Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shreya Kaushik, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner(s). Ms. Neha Jain, Sr.Panel Counsel for respondent No.1-UOI. Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. H.S.Jugait, Advocate for respondent No.5. *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J.(Oral) CM-2050-CWP-2026 Application is allowed as prayed for. CM-2051-CWP-2026 Application is allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-21 to P-25 are taken on record subject to all just VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 2 exceptions. Main case 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.060/00196 of 2016, by which the prayer of the petitioners for regularizing their services was declined. 2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand before proceeding further. It may be noticed that out of the total four petitioners, petitioner No.1-Dr. Harjeet Singh started working from 11.09.2003, but as of now is no longer in service. The services of Dr. Dharminder Singh, who is petitioner No.2 have been terminated by respondent No.4 and is also therefore not working. So far as the petitioner No.3-Jawahir Lal Raina is concerned, he left the job in the year 2015 and is also not working. Petitioner No.4-Dr. Mohd. Munis is stated to be working even as on now on the post of Resource Person (Urdu) since his date of appointment i.e. 03.01.2007. 3. However, out of four petitioners only one i.e. petitioner No.4 is working with the respondent. The question which arises is whether, at this stage, when the petitioner No.4 has worked for a period of more than 19 years, his services needs to be regularized on the post on which he was appointed in the year 2007, which appointment resulted after due selection on the post after advertisement and consideration of the claim of all the eligibles. Qua the other petitioners, as they are no longer in service, their claim order of regularizing their service can not be passed, however, in case they are aggrieved against the action of the respondent in relieving them from service, they can avail VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 3 appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. It may be further noticed that any such remedy availed by the petitioners who are no longer in service, the same will not be dismissed on the ground of limitation as, they were pursuing the present litigation even after today. It may be further noticed that though, it was mentioned that their services were not to be dispensed with, but once it is a matter of fact that they are no longer in service, no benefit of regularization can be granted as, the regularization can only be granted to a person who is in service at the time of seeking the said relief. 4. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court as of now is whether Dr. Mohamad Munis-petitioner No.4, who is working since January 2007 can claim the benefit of regularization of his services or not. 5. As per the settled principle of law, any employee, who has worked for more than 10 years, is entitled to be considered for regularization of services and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo Versus Union of India and others, 2025 (1) SLR 1, Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another, the said benefit has to be extended keeping in view the number of years of service rendered. The relevant paras of the judgment of Dharam Singh’s case is as under:- “9. Moreover, it is undisputed that the nature of work performed by the appellants, i.e. sorting and scrutiny of applications, dispatch and office support, and driving, has been continuous and integral to the Commission’s functioning since their engagement between 1989 and 1992. The Commission itself moved for sanction of fourteen posts and furnished a list of fourteen daily wagers including the appellants. That consistent internal demand, coupled with uninterrupted utilisation of the appellants’ labour on regular office hours, fortifies the conclusion that the duties are perennial. To continue extracting such work for decades while pleading want of sanctioned strength is a position that cannot be sustained. VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 4 10. It must be noted that the premise of “no vacancy” is, in any event, contradicted by the evidence on record. An RTI response of 22.01.2010 received from the office of Respondent No.2 indicated existence of Class-IV vacancies. Furthermore, I.A. No. 109487 of 2020 filed before this Court by the appellants specifically pointed to at least five vacant Class-IV/Guard posts and one vacant Driver post within the establishment. That application also set out the names of similarly situated daily wagers who were regularised earlier within the same Commission. No rebuttal was filed to the I.A. The unrebutted assertion of vacancies and the comparison with those who received regularisation materially undermine the High Court’s conclusion that no vacancy existed and reveal unequal treatment vis-à-vis persons similarly placed. Selective regularisation in the same establishment, while continuing the appellants on daily wages despite comparable tenure and duties with those regularized, is a clear violation of equity. 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 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 fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 5 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 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: VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 6 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. We also note the Commission’s affidavit filed in 21.04.2025 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, wherein reference has been made to a supervening reorganisation in 2024, whereby the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission was merged into the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission and, by a Government Order of 05.07.2024, certain Group-C posts were sanctioned while Class-IV/Driver requirements were proposed to be met through outsourcing. We must point out however, that supervening structural change cannot extinguish accrued claims or pending proceedings. The VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 7 successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. More fundamentally, a later policy to outsource Class- IV/Driver functions cannot retrospectively validate earlier arbitrary refusals, nor can it be invoked to deny consideration to workers on whose continuous services the establishment relied for decades. 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full- time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. 16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 8 extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay- level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 9 iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.” 6. A bare perusal of the above would show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has gone upto to extend that where an employee has worked for approximately two decades, even the ineligibility qua qualification or that no post exists for consideration for regularization should be taken and such appointment which is continuing for two decades, should be regularized. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Dharam Singh’s case (supra) had directed the authorities concerned to regularize service of the employees keeping in view the long and undisputed service of the employee concerned, the admitted continuous nature of their duties and also the comparison of the long term, irregular or ad hoc employers with their fully regularized counterparts and similar is the view taken in Uma Devi’s case (supra) and Shripal’s case (supra) as discussed in the Dharam Singh’s case (supra). 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UPSC submits that petitioner No.4 is working on a Class-I post and therefore, his services could not be regularized. Qua the said argument, it may be noticed that VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 10 the benefit of regularization has been granted recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the policy issued by the Government of Haryana in Civil Appeal bearing No.1996-2024, titled as “Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others”, where the benefit of regularization has been allowed in favour of an Assistant Professor whereas, the post on which the respondent is working is that of a Lecturer i.e. lower than Assistant Professor. Further, in the said judgment of Madan Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP-Civil Appeal No.2868-2018 decided on 04.02.2025, titled as Union of India Vs. K.Velajagan and others”, the Assistant Professors/Lecturers working on hourly basis have been held to be entitled to be considered for regularization of their services, keeping in view the number of years of service they have rendered. 8. Once, even the part time lecturers have been considered eligible for regularization, the benefit being claimed by petitioner No.4, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, needs to be allowed for consideration for regularization of the services of the petitioner No.4 as he has worked for more than 19 years even as of now and is still continuing his service. 9. The argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner No.4 was appointed on a part time basis. It may be noticed that the part time service can only be treated as part time in case the same is needed for the specified purpose and that too as a stop gap arrangement. Where a lecturer is being asked to perform a duty for a period of more than19 years, and nothing has come against his professional capability, merely that the said “part time” designation is continuing, the continuing VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 11 service for a period of two decades cannot be ignored. With regard to the part time service also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4840-4841 of 2014 decided on 22.04.2015 titled as Mona Soin etc Vs. Union of India and others allowed such relief. All these settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore has gone un-rebutted at the hands of the respondents. 10. Learned State counsel submits that there is no policy with the State to regularize the services of petitioner No.4. It may noticed that in Jaggo, as well as in Shripal and Dharam Singh’s cases, the direction for regularization has been given based upon the particular length of service rendered by the employee and not based upon policy of a State. Once, in the present case, the said criteria of length of service has already been fulfilled by the petitioner No.4, merely that the respondents never bothered to formulate any policy or bothered to look after the welfare of their own employees who have been working for them for decades, the same will not go against the such employee, to claim the benefit of regularization, in case, their cases are covered as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in somewhat similar present case and that too when petitioner No.4 was appointed after duly advertising the post and considering the claim of all the eligible candidates. 11. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, coupled with the settled principle of law noticed herein before this Court, respondents have not been able to rebut that petitioner No.4 is entitled to be considered for the regularization of his service. Hence, appropriate direction is given to the respondents to pass appropriate speaking order. In case, the work VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment CM-2050-51-CWP-2026 in/and CWP-2494-2018 (O&M) 12 and conduct of the petitioner No.4 is found to be satisfactory, no other objection will be taken for rejection including over age or that petitioner No.4 is working on a Class-I post or on part time basis etc. especially when the case of the similarly situated employees, even Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that they are entitled for the regularization of service. 12. Let, appropriate order in pursuance to the present direction given, be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 29.04.2026 vanita Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No VANITA 2026.05.12 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order and judgment