[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hargopal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 April, 2026
CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.04.2026
Hargopal and others ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Gulraz S. Kohli, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-PHSC.
***
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
CM-15029-CWP-2025
This is an application under Section 151 CPC for fixing an early
and actual date of hearing in the main case.
The main case is already listed at Sr. No.1344 on regular board
of this Court, therefore, the instant application is allowed and the main case
is taken up today itself.
CWP-27344-2013
1. The present petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-
authenticity of this order/judgment
CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M) -2-
12) whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization was rejected.
Further, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
regularization of their services in terms of instructions dated 18.3.2011
(Annexure P-10), at par with those similarly placed counterparts, and to
grant all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation and the arrears
thereof along with interest @ 12% p.a.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the
petitioners were recruited as Computer Operators with the respondent-
Corporation, in pursuance of advertisements (Annexure P-1 colly) issued in
various newspapers. The petitioners were appointed, in the years 2001-2005
(Annexure P-2), on contractual basis and their tenure was extended from
time to time. He submits that the nature of the duties discharged by the
petitioners is perennial in nature and thus, they deserve to be regularized.
Further, certain similarly situated counterparts of the petitioners have
already been regularized vide order 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-8). However,
instead of extending the same benefit to the petitioners, the respondents
passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-12) rejecting their
claim for regularization. The respondents have reasoned that the petitioners
are not covered by instructions dated 18.03.2011 and 17.11.2011 as they
were appointed on contract basis and not against any sanctioned post.
Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered
authenticity of this order/judgment
CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M) -3-
by judgments passed by this Court Kartar Singh and others Vs. The State
of Punjab and another in CWP-5307-2025, decided on 06.02.2026 and
Bhupesh Kumar and others Vs. Punjab Health System Corporation and
another in CWP-24673-2025, decided on 12.02.2026.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents could not
controvert that the ratio laid down in Kartar Singh(supra) and Bhupesh
Kumar(supra) rendered in favour of co-employees of the petitioners or
distinguish the case of the petitioners from them.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record, it transpires that the petitioners had joined the service as
Computer Operators with the respondent-Corporation between the years
2001 to 2005, on a contractual basis. However, owing to the perennial nature
of their work, their contracts were extended from time to time. Admittedly,
their similarly situated counterparts have already been granted the benefit of
regularization vide order 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) while the claim of the
petitioners has been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.10.2012
(Annexure P-12).
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the State, being a
model employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees
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 Consti-
tution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments ren-
dered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union
authenticity of this order/judgment
CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M) -4-
of India (2024) 9 SCC 327 and Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Furthermore, a two-Judge Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, speaking through Justice Vikram
Nath, has made the following observations in this regard:
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the
High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is mis-
placed. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an in-
vitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It
is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts de-
spite 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 de-
nial 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 pre-
cariousness 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 in-
terim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of
engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's re-
fusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitle-
ments 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M) -5-
and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term ex-
traction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confi-
dence in public administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public pol-
icy, 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 out-
sourcing 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 conse-
quences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitu-
tional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running." (Emphasis supplied)
6. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment ren-
dered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjab,
(2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and
others vs. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate
bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others in
CWP-19238-2013 decided on 26.02.2024. Additionally, the case of the peti-
tioners is also squarely covered by Kartar Singh (supra) and Bhupesh
Singh (supra).
7. In view of the discussion above, the present petition is disposed
of in terms of Kartar Singh(supra) and Bhupesh Kumar(supra), with a di-
rection to the respondent/competent authority to regularize the services of
the petitioner within 06 weeks from today. If no order of regularization is
passed within 06 weeks from today, the petitioner shall be deemed to be reg-
ularized.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and
CWP-27344-2013(O&M) -6-
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
02.04.2026 (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
