[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Raj vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 December, 2025
208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-4377-2022
Date of decision: 12.12.2025
Tilak Raj ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Duggal, Advocate
for respondents No.4 & 5.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner
in view of the policy dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-6)
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Pump Driver in Punjab Water
Supply & Sewerage Board on 01.12.1995. He continuously worked upto
31.03.1997. Thereafter, his service was transferred to Municipal Council,
Nangal on 17.04.1997 where he served till 27.05.2004 and subsequently got
terminated on 27.05.2004. Further, the petitioner raised an industrial
dispute and the learned Labour Court passed the award in his favour which was
1 of 6
challenged by the respondents by way of filing CWP No.13457 of 2014 before
this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure P-2).
Thereafter, an Intra Court Appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed.
The petitioner in terms of the award passed by the learned Labour Court on
16.07.2015 (Annexure P-5) was reinstated with continuity of service.
Ultimately, after the dismissal of LPA No.1918 of 2014 by the Division Bench
of this Court, the petitioner was finally allowed to join on 16.07.2015. The
petitioner is continuously working since then. The petitioner was neither
engaged as a casual labourer nor part time employee, as such, the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in 'Jaggo Vs. Union of India and others' 2025 AIR SC 296, 'Vinod Kumar
and others Vs. Union of India' (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and 'Shripal & Another
Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad' 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. He further
submits that the respondents are extracting the perennial work at par with the
regular employees and are denying the benefit of regularization and minimum
wages.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the
petitioner was not appointed against any sanctioned vacant post, nor his
engagement was made pursuant to a selection process conducted in accordance
with an advertisement. Therefore, in terms of the policy dated 16.09.2002
(Annexure R-3/1), the petitioner is not entitled to regularization.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it transpires that the petitioner has rendered a long service and his initial
engagement cannot be termed as casual or part-time in nature. The award of the
2 of 6
Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service has attained
finality upon dismissal of the writ petition as well as the intra-court appeal
preferred by the respondents. Further, rejecting his claim for regularization
despite long service, is highly unfair and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
5. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long
term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of
the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer,
cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of
sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational
qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its
instrumentality for a significant time period. Such an approach would be
violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary
employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources
when the State had no qualms about continuously taking advantage of the
services rendered with regard to integral and recurring work of the concerned
department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered 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 and
Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.
6. Recently, a Two-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1735 speaking through Justice Vikram Nath has held as follows:
3 of 6
"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 India and
in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 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....
** ** **
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.
** ** **
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
extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes
confidence in public administration and of ends the promise of
4 of 6
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 dif erently, 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 af ecting those who keep public of ices running."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to
formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments
rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for
regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo
unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or
contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular
work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity.
8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Respondent
No.3 is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner within six weeks
from today. If no order of regularization is passed within 6 weeks from today,
he shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioner shall be entitled to
counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments rendered by this
5 of 6
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.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.12.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
