[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mani Ram vs State Of Haryana Through Secretary And ... on 23 December, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases
                                                             -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH



115-52                      CWP-8816-2025


MANI RAM
                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              .....RESPONDENTS

115-46                      CWP-23983-2024

SUBE SINGH
                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              .....RESPONDENTS

115-44                      CWP-21933-2024

RAJESH KUMAR
                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              .....RESPONDENTS

115-50                      CWP-28279-2024

VED PARKASH
                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              .....RESPONDENTS

115-49                      CWP-27947-2024

PRITHVI SINGH
                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                    VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              .....RESPONDENTS




                                  1 of 17
               ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 12:43:07 :::
 CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases
                                                                 -2-

115-48                         CWP-25239-2024

BIMLA DEVI AND ANR.
                                                           .....PETITIONERS
                                       VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                 .....RESPONDENTS

115-47                         CWP-25091-2024

LILLU RAM
                                                           .....PETITIONER
                                       VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                                .....RESPONDENTS



1. The date when the judgment is reserved                        19.12.2025
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced                      23.12.2025
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded                         24.12.2025
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is                   Full
   pronounced or whether the full judgment is
   pronounced
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full               Not applicable
   judgment and reason thereof.


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. Nihal S. Choudhary, Advocate with
            Ms. Anita S. Choudhary, Advocate
            for the petitioner(s).

            Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
            Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
            Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG, Haryana.

        ****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Vide this common order, this Court shall dispose of above mentioned

writ petitions as common question of law is involved therein.

2 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP-

8816-2025.

3. By way of the writ petition bearing CWP No.8816-2025 petitioner

namely Mr. Mani Ram is seeking quashing of impugned order dated 16.08.2024

(Annexure P-10) passed by respondent no. 3 vide which the claim of the petitioner

for antedated regularization from 01.10.2003 instead of 21.11.2014 has been

rejected whereas similarly placed employees have been granted antedated

regularization by the respondent pursuant to the directions of this court.

The conspectus of Facts:

4. The petitioner was engaged as a daily paid labourer (Class-IV) in the

respondent-department in the year 1995 against a sanctioned and long-standing

vacant post. Subsequently, his services were discontinued without notice,

whereupon he raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, Hisar, by a reasoned

award dated 16.02.2005 (Annexure P-1), held that the petitioner had completed

more than 240 days of service, rejected the plea of abandonment, and directed

reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits along with

25% back wages. The said award attained finality, having never been challenged

by the respondents.

5. Pursuant to the State policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2)

providing for regularization of Class-III and Class-IV employees, several similarly

situated and much junior employees of the same department were regularized with

effect from 01.10.2003 vide letter Endst. No. 3040 dated 29.04.2005 (Annexure P-

3). Despite repeated representations, the petitioner was denied similar treatment

3 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

and was eventually regularized vide letter Endst. No. 4665661 dated 21.11.2014

(Annexure P-5) under a subsequent policy dated 18.06.2014.

6. The petitioner had sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure P-

7) and upon failure of the respondents in deciding the said legal notice, the

petitioner alongwith other similarly situated employees approached this Court by

way of petition bearing CWP-342 of 2019 titled as "Mani Ram vs. State of

Haryana and Others", which was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure

P-8) and the services of the petitioner were ordered to be regularized w.e.f

01.10.2003 or from the date the service of junior to him has been regularized with

all consequential service benefits alongwith 6% interest. Even after specific

directions given by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent-department

rejected the claim of the petitioner alongwith others. His claim for ante-dated

regularization from 01.10.2003, based on parity with juniors, the final Labour

Court award, and binding judgments of this Court, was rejected by the impugned

order dated 16.08.2024, giving rise to the present writ petition.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order

dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) is ex facie illegal and unsustainable as it seeks

to reopen an issue which already stands conclusively adjudicated by the Labour

Court, Hisar, vide award dated 16.02.2005 (Annexure P-1). It is urged that the

Labour Court, after examining the attendance record and evidence on record,

recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had completed more than 240

days of service and was entitled to continuity of service. The said award having

4 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

attained finality now the respondent-department is estopped from disputing the

completion of 240 days or treating the petitioner as ineligible under the policy

dated 01.10.2003.

8. It is further contended that the petitioner was fully eligible for

regularization under the policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2), yet he was

arbitrarily denied the benefit, whereas similarly situated and admittedly much

junior employees of the same department were regularized with effect from

01.10.2003, vide letter Endst. No. 3040 dated 29.04.2005 (Annexure P-3). It is

argued that such denial amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the petitioner stood on a

stronger footing due to the binding judicial declaration in his favour.

9. The counsel has further argued that the reliance placed by the

respondents on the judgment in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1

is wholly misconceived as the petitioner is not seeking regularization through the

backdoor but enforcement of a pre-existing regularization policy, coupled with

parity and a final adjudication of his service status.

10. It is also contended that the issue stands squarely covered by a

consistent line of judgments of this Court, including CWP- 14310-2019 "Birbhan

and others v. State of Haryana" dated 27.02.2020 (Annexure P-11), CWP-

16351-2012 "Bhim Singh and others v. State of Haryana and connected

matters" dated 30.07.2015, which have been affirmed up to the Letters Patent

Appeal stage and duly complied with by the respondents. The petitioner argues

that once the department has implemented identical directions in favour of

similarly situated employees, it cannot adopt a contrary stand in his case.

5 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

11. Lastly, it is submitted that the subsequent regularization of the

petitioner in the year 2014 does not cure the illegality already committed, nor does

it defeat his accrued and crystallized right to ante-dated regularization from

01.10.2003. The impugned order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-10), being

arbitrary, discriminatory and in teeth of settled law, is therefore liable to be

quashed, with a consequential direction to grant the petitioner ante-dated

regularization along with all attendant service benefits.

On behalf of the respondent

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ

petition is misconceived and not maintainable, as the petitioner has already been

regularized in service with effect from 01.07.2014 under the special regularization

policy dated 18.06.2014 and the petitioner had duly accepted the said

regularization without protest. It is contended that once the petitioner joined

service pursuant to the regularization order, he is estopped from claiming

regularization from an earlier date.

13. It is further contended that the petitioner was never eligible for

regularization under the policy dated 01.10.2003, as he did not fulfill the essential

condition of having completed three years of service with a minimum of 240 days

in each calendar year without break. According to the respondents, the petitioner

worked only intermittently as a Daily Paid Labourer during November 1996 to

November 1997 and thereafter abandoned the job on his own volition. Hence, it is

argued that the question of granting regularization from 01.10.2003 does not arise.

14. The respondents submit that the impugned order dated 16.08.2024

(Annexure P-10) is a reasoned and speaking order, passed strictly in compliance

6 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

with the directions issued by this Court in CWP-342-2019 on 22.05.2024, after

reconsidering the petitioner's case in light of all applicable policies. It is argued

that since the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria under the policy

dated 01.10.2003, his claim was rightly rejected.

15. Further, a reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Uma Devi (supra), to contend that no regularization can be granted in the

absence of compliance with the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is

asserted that pursuant to the said judgment, the State of Haryana withdrew all

earlier regularization policies, including the policy dated 01.10.2003, vide letter

dated 25.04.2007, and therefore no right survives in favour of the petitioner to seek

regularization from an earlier date.

16. Otherwise also the petitioner cannot claim parity with other

employees who were regularized earlier, as their cases stood on a different factual

footing and were either finalized prior to the withdrawal of the policy or pursuant

to specific judicial directions. According to the respondents, the judgments relied

upon by the petitioner, including Birbhan (supra) and Ashish Sharma & Others

vs. State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 13.03.2024 in CWP-2158-2020, are

distinguishable on facts and do not automatically entitle the petitioner to identical

relief.

17. Lastly, it is contended that this Court in CWP No.17206 of 2014 titled

as "Yogesh Tyagi & Another Versus State of Haryana & others decided on

31.05.2018 quashed the regularization policy of 18.06.2014 against which the

State Government preferred SLP before the Supreme Court and interim relief of

status quo has been granted while the SLP is still pending before the Supreme

7 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

Court of India. At this stage, the petitioner's position under the regularization

policy cannot be altered.

18. It is argued that no fundamental or constitutional right of the

petitioner has been infringed, and the present writ petition has been filed after an

inordinate delay, merely to harass the department and reopen a settled issue. On

these grounds, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.

19. Heard counsel for both parties.

The lis and the issues :

Margin of appreciation and Judicial restraint

20. Judicial review in service jurisprudence is not confined to the margins

of administrative discretion. Where State action results in unequal civil

consequences, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the form but the

substance of the decision-making process. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held

that discretion in public employment is structured by constitutional discipline, and

cannot be exercised to the detriment of equality.

21. In "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248",

arbitrariness was held to be antithetical to the rule of law. Thus, where the State

selectively applies a regularization policy, judicial review extends to correcting

such constitutional aberrations. The impugned denial of ante-dated regularization,

founded on re-opened facts and differential treatment, therefore squarely invites

interference.

8 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

22. With this foundational principle, the Court now examines the facts of

the present case and determines whether interference is justified. This court is

faced with the following issues for determination in the present petition:

Core Issue for Determination

Whether an employee, whose continuity of service and completion of qualifying service stand conclusively affirmed by a final judicial award, can be denied ante-dated regularization under the applicable policy, despite the extension of such benefit to similarly situated and junior employees?

23. The fulcrum of the petitioner's challenge lies in a grave and manifest

illegality on the part of the respondents. It is an admitted position that the services

of the petitioner stand regularized pursuant to the order dated 16.08.2024

(Annexure P-10) passed by respondent no. 3 under the 21.11.2014 policy in view

of the award of the Labour Court (Annexure P-1). Having accepted both the

petitioner's eligibility and entitlement, the respondents could not, either in law or

in equity, deny him the full benefit of regularization under the 01.10.2003 policy

by selectively applying the later policy of 21.11.2014. Such conduct is ex facie

arbitrary and strikes at the core of the constitutional guarantee of equality under

Article 14 of Constitution of India.

Effect of the Labour Court Award

24. The Labour Court clearly directed reinstatement with continuity of

service vide award dated 16.02.2005 (Annexure P-1), which was never challenged

by the respondent attained finality thereby. This Labour Court's award, rendered

after adjudication on evidence, conclusively affirmed that the petitioner had

completed the requisite qualifying service and was entitled to continuity. This

9 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

judicial determination operates as a binding declaration of status, not merely for

the purposes of reinstatement but for all incidental and consequential service

benefits. This aspect has already been considered by this Court in CWP-11224-

2015 titled Lekhu Raj V/s. State of Haryana and others that once the labourer has

been given benefit of continuity of service by the Labour Court award, he is

deemed to be in service from the date of termination till passing of award and then

his case has to be considered as per the policy prevailing at that time.

25. Once continuity of service is granted, the law treats the employee as

being in uninterrupted service for all relevant purposes. As a judicial order's

finality declaring continuity is not an empty formality but carries substantive legal

consequences. The respondents, therefore, are precluded from denying benefits

that naturally flow from such continuity.

26. The attempt to question the completion of qualifying days in the

impugned order constitutes a collateral challenge to a final adjudication, which the

law does not permit. The sanctity of judicial finality would be eroded if

administrative authorities are allowed to revisit settled findings under the guise of

policy scrutiny.

Duty of the State

27. This court is of the opinion that the responsibility to identify, consider,

and regularize eligible employees rested squarely upon the State. The failure of the

respondents to discharge this obligation in a timely and lawful manner cannot now

be used to the detriment of the petitioner. Administrative inaction or delay on the

part of the State cannot be converted into a tool to deprive a workman of his

10 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

accrued and legitimate rights. To permit such a course would be to allow the State

to take advantage of its own wrong, an outcome wholly impermissible in

constitutional jurisprudence.

28. The petitioner belongs to the lowest rung of public employment

working as a Class IV worker, who has rendered continuous service as a labourer

since as far back as the year 1995. These are not abstract service rights but issues

of livelihood, dignity, and social justice. To now deny the petitioner regularization

from the 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-2), when the right to regularization accrued to

him, on the specious ground that the policy has subsequently been withdrawn is

not merely arbitrary but it is shocking to the conscience of the Court. The

withdrawal of a policy cannot operate retrospectively to extinguish rights that had

already accrued, particularly when the delay in granting regularization is solely

attributable to the State.

29. The petitioner continuously worked since 1995. Thus, by 30.09.2003,

the petitioner had already rendered more than eight years of service, far in excess

of the minimum three years prescribed under the policy. The Labour Court, while

adjudicating the industrial dispute, specifically recorded that the petitioner had

worked continuously. Once the petitioner's stood eligible under the 2003 policy,

the right to be considered for and granted regularization crystallized at that point in

time. The respondents cannot resurrect a later policy framework to defeat that

vested right, especially when similarly situated employees have been granted the

benefit of regularization from an earlier date. Such selective application of policy

results in hostile discrimination and creates an unreasonable classification devoid

of any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

11 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

Legitimate Expectation

30. Otherwise also, the withdrawal of a beneficial administrative scheme

does not retrospectively wipe out accrued rights or legitimate expectation,

especially when denial occurred due to illegal termination later corrected by

judicial adjudication. In "Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation,

(1993) 3 SCC 499", the Supreme Court recognized legitimate expectation as part

of constitutional fairness wherein it was held,

"29. This is a three-fold present : the present as we experience it, the past as a present memory and future as a present expectation. For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distiguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense.

30. It has to be noticed that the concept of legitimate expectation in administrative law has now, undoubtedly, gained sufficient importance. It is stated that "Legitimate expectation" is the latest recruit to a long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for the review of administrative action and this creation takes its place beside such principles as the rules of natural justice, unreasonableness, the fiduciary duty of local authorities and "in future, perhaps, the principle of proportionately".

31. The petitioner's entitlement under the Regularization Policies of

2003-2004 is reinforced by the well-established doctrine of Accrued or

Crystallised Rights. Once an employee fulfills all the conditions of a policy while

it is in operation, the benefit is no longer contingent but becomes a vested

entitlement which cannot be retrospectively defeated by subsequent administrative

12 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

withdrawal. The petitioner having completed the qualifying service much prior to

30.09.2003, her right to be considered for regularization stood crystallised on that

date.

32. The State, as a model employer, is constitutionally bound to act fairly,

reasonably, and with sensitivity toward its most vulnerable employees. Having

accepted the petitioner's eligibility and regularized his services in substance, the

respondents cannot deny him the consequential benefits in full measure. Any such

denial would render the promise of equality illusory and legitimize a course of

conduct that is capricious, unjust, and constitutionally impermissible.

Entitlement under the 2003 Policy

33. This court mindful of the fact that ante-dated regularization is a legal

consequence and not an equitable indulgence. Where an employee satisfies the

eligibility criteria under a policy at the time of its operation, regularization must

relate back to the date when the right first accrued. To grant regularization from a

later date, without legal justification, is to truncate a vested right.

34. The jurisprudential foundation of ante-dating lies in the principle that

the State cannot profit from its own delay or inaction. In Union of India v. Tarsem

Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648, the Supreme Court observed that where a continuing

wrong affects service benefits, relief must be moulded to neutralise the injustice,

notwithstanding the passage of time. Relevant extract is as follows:

"5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted

13 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. "

35. The subsequent regularization of the petitioner under a later policy

does not obliterate his earlier entitlement. Acceptance of later regularization

cannot be construed as waiver, particularly when the petitioner had been

continuously asserting his claim. Constitutional rights are not surrendered by

administrative acquiescence.

36. Importantly, Uma Devi (supra) does not bar ante-dated regularization

in cases where eligibility flows from a pre-existing policy and judicial

determination. This position was clarified in "Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer

I/R to FCI (2014) 7 SCC 190", where the Supreme Court held that Uma Devi

cannot be invoked to defeat legitimate claims arising from parity or settled

adjudication. Relevant extract is as under:

"However, wherever it is found that similarly situated workmen are regularised by the employer itself under some scheme or otherwise and the workmen in question who have approached Industrial/Labour Court are at par with them, direction of regularization in such cases may be legally justified, otherwise, non-regularization of the left over workers itself would amount to invidious discrimination qua them in such cases and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the Industrial adjudicator would be achieving the equality by upholding Article 14, rather than violating this constitutional provision."

37. Therefore, Ante-dated regularization does not amount to creating a

new right retrospectively but it merely gives effect to an existing right that stood

crystallized when the employee became eligible. It restores the employee to the

14 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

position he would have lawfully occupied had the State discharged its

constitutional and statutory obligations in a timely manner. Any contrary approach

would undermine the rule of law and convert the State's failure into a justification

for perpetual disadvantage to the employee. In this sense, ante-dating is not an

exception to the law it is a constitutional imperative flowing from the principles of

fairness, non-arbitrariness, and equality. It ensures that regularization remains an

instrument of justice, not an act of charity, and that the State, as a model employer,

is held to standards consistent with constitutional morality.

Consequence of subsequent withdrawal of policy

38. Another contention of the state that the policy claimed by the

petitioner by way of this petition stands withdrawn in view of Uma Devi's case, it

is pertinent to observe the jurisprudence emerging from this case and subsequent

decisions of the Supreme Court reflects a clear intention to safeguard employees

from exploitation. The Court has repeatedly underscored that governments should

not perpetuate ad-hoc or contractual employment by issuing regularization

schemes at their convenience. Instead, as a one-time measure, only those

employees who have completed ten years of continuous service are to be

considered for regularization. These directions must be understood in light of

fundamental principles of legal interpretation, which require that the law be

construed in a manner that protects the vulnerable and preserves the legitimate

rights of employees. Individuals cannot be left to serve indefinitely on daily-wage,

contractual, work-charged, or part-time posts without a fair opportunity for

regularization. Moreover, the contention of the respondents that the 2014 policy

under which benefits were granted to the petitioner stands quashed by this Court in

15 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

Yogesh Tyagi (supra) is legally untenable. The present petition does not seek the

grant of regularization per se, rather it is confined to the claim for ante-dated

regularization, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to. Consequently, the

quashing of the policy has no bearing on the relief sought in the present

proceedings.

39. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner has been working since

1995 i.e., more than 2 decades as on date, but for one or the other reason taking

excuses, the respondent-State has absolved itself from the duty as a socialistic

welfare State, which otherwise tantamount to unfair labour practice or unfair

means on its part to avail the services of such petitioners to their own advantage,

who have devoted more than 60 % of life span for a meager amount, which may

not be even sufficient to maintain themselves what to talk of their dependents in

the family.

Parity with Similarly Situated Employees

40. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has placed on record material

to show that several employees working on Group-D posts in the same

department, performing identical duties and governed by the same policy

framework, have been granted the benefit of ante-dated regularization. The

respondents, though admitting such regularization, seek to distinguish the

petitioner on the basis different facutal aspects and the subsequent withdrawal of

the policy. However, both these grounds, as already discussed, do not withstand

legal scrutiny.

41. Equality before law requires that persons similarly situated must be

16 of 17

CWP-8816-2025 and connected cases

treated alike. Any State action which suffers from arbitrariness is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in "E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3", held that arbitrariness is the very negation of equality. Where a policy has been applied in favour of certain members of a class, its denial to another member of the same class, without any rational or intelligible basis, renders the action discriminatory. The respondents have not been able to point out any legally sustainable distinction between the petitioner and those who have already been regularized.

Conclusion:

42. In view of the discussion on the foregoing issues, ante-dated regularization is not a matter of concession but a constitutional imperative. The denial thereof undermines judicial finality, rewards administrative delay, and fractures the principle of equality in public employment.

43. Therefore, the impugned action is not sustainable in law and thus the order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to ante-dated regularization from the date on which he became eligible under the prevailing policy, with all consequential service benefits.

44. The respondent-department is ordered to grant the petitioner the benefit of ante-dated regularization under the policy dated 01.10.2003 and release all consequential benefits and arrears of pay along with interest of 6% per anum within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.