[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 21 January, 2026

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

CWP-24947-2018                                                               -1-


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH



115-63                        CWP-24947-2018


VINOD KUMAR
                                                          .....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                     21.01.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded                       22.01.2026
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. Vivek Khatri, Advocate with
            Ms. Monika Khatri, Advocate
            for the petitioner(s).

            Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
            Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.


        ****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

This Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the impugned order dated 12.03.2004 (Annexure P-3) and also quashing

the Impugned order dated 06.03.2017 (P-9) whereby claim of the petitioner has

1 of 11

been rejected without considering the Judgment of the high court and the judgment

of the Supreme Court and also without considering the judgment dated 19.08.2004

passed by the High Court in CWP No. 1998 of 2003 because the petitioner was

similar situated person passed by the Superintending Engineer P.W.D Hisar i.e.

respondent no. 3, whereby the services of the petitioner has been regularized w.e.f.

01.10.2003 instead of 01.02.1996 and also quashing the order dated 06.03.2017

(P-9) passed by the respondent no.2 i.e Engineer in Chief Haryana, Public Health

Department, Panchkula.

The conspectus of Facts:

2. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar on daily wage/muster roll

basis on 01.05.1993. Their work and conduct throughout remained satisfactory and

no adverse remark or complaint was ever recorded against them.

3. The State Government of Haryana issued a regularization policy dated

07.03.1996 for work-charged/casual/daily rated employees who had completed

five years of service as on 31.01.1996, subject to fulfillment of prescribed

conditions. The said policy was subsequently modified vide circular dated

18.03.1996, whereby the requirement was reduced to completion of three years of

service as on 31.01.1996.

4. Despite being eligible under the said policy, the services of the

petitioner was regularized by the respondent-department only with effect from

01.10.2003 instead of 01.02.1996.

5. Similarly situated employees filed CWP No. 1998 of 2003, which was

allowed by this Court on 19.08.2004 (Annexure P-4), directing regularization with

effect from 01.02.1996 along with all consequential benefits. The challenge laid by

2 of 11

the State of Haryana up to the Supreme Court by way of SLP 4216-2005 failed,

and the Civil Appeal NO. 1372-2007 was dismissed on 05.08.2015 (Annexure P-

5). In compliance thereof, the respondent-department regularized the services of

those petitioners w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with monetary benefits.

6. After dismissal of the State's appeal, the petitioner submitted

representations dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure P-7) seeking similar relief.

7. However, the claim of the present petitioner was rejected on the

ground of an interim stay relating to the regularization policy dated 16.06.2014,

though the petitioner's claim arises under the policy of 1996.

8. Aggrieved by the discriminatory treatment and denial of parity, the

petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularization of their services w.e.f.

01.02.1996 with all consequential benefits.

Contentions:

On behalf of the petitioner:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner was

appointed on daily wage/muster roll basis on 01.05.1993 and had completed the

requisite qualifying service as per the regularization policy dated 07.03.1996 as

modified on 18.03.1996, having worked for more than 240 days in each year and

being in service on 31.01.1996.

10. It is argued that the services of the petitioner ought to have been

regularized with effect from 01.02.1996, but the respondent-department arbitrarily

regularized them only w.e.f. 01.10.2003, which is illegal and contrary to the policy.

11. Learned counsel submits that similarly situated employees were

granted regularization w.e.f. 01.02.1996 pursuant to the judgment dated

3 of 11

19.08.2004 passed in CWP No. 1998 of 2003, which has attained finality up to the

Supreme Court. The benefit of the said judgment has also been extended to other

similarly situated persons, including Rajesh Kumar and Ramu Sharma pursuant to

judgements of this court.

12. It is further contended that rejection of the petitioner's claim on the

ground of stay of the policy dated 16.06.2014 is wholly misconceived, as the

petitioner's claim arises under the 1996 policy and not under the policy of 2014.

On behalf of the respondent

13. Learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioners were

rightly regularized in accordance with the applicable instructions and

administrative requirements and that no illegality has been committed by the

respondent-department in regularizing their services with effect from 01.10.2003.

14. It is submitted that the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility

conditions for regularization with effect from 01.02.1996, as they had not

completed the requisite qualifying service strictly in terms of the policy

instructions and departmental records.

15. Learned counsel further argues that the claim of the petitioners was

duly considered by the competent authority pursuant to the directions issued by

this Court and was rejected by a speaking order.

16. It is also contended that in view of the interim order passed by this

Court staying further regularizations under the policy, coupled with the

instructions issued by the Chief Secretary, no further regularization could be

granted at the relevant time while submitting that the petitioners cannot claim

4 of 11

parity as a matter of right merely on the basis of orders passed in other cases, and

each case has to be decided on its own facts and service record.

17. Heard counsel for both parties.

Analysis

Margin of appreciation and Judicial restraint

18. 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.

19. 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.

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

the present case and determines whether interference is justified. On careful

consideration of the facts and pleadings, it is evident that the petitioners were

appointed on daily wage/muster roll basis on 01.05.1993 and had continuously

worked without any break. They clearly fulfill the conditions laid down in the

regularization policy dated 07.03.1996, as modified on 18.03.1996, including

5 of 11

completion of three years of qualifying service and working for more than 240

days in each year.

Duty of the State

21. 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

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.

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

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

since as far back as the year 1993. These are not abstract service rights but issues

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

from the 1996 Policy, 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.

23. The petitioner continuously worked since 1993. Thus, by 1996, the

petitioner had already rendered more than three years of service as prescribed

under the policy. Once the petitioner's stood eligible under the 1996 policy, the

6 of 11

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.

24. The petitioner's entitlement under the Regularization Policy of 1996

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 withdrawal. The petitioner

having completed the qualifying service prior to the cut off date of the 1996 policy,

his right to be considered for regularization stood crystallised on that date.

25. 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.

Ante-dated Regularization

26. 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

7 of 11

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.

27. 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 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. "

28. 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.

29. Importantly, law 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,

"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

8 of 11

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."

30. 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

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

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

petitioner by way of this petition stands withdrawn by the State of Haryana

pursuant to orders of this Court. 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.

9 of 11

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

1993 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

33. 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.

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

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

10 of 11

point out any legally sustainable distinction between the petitioner and those who

have already been regularized.

Conclusion:

35. 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.

36. 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 of 1996, with all consequential service benefits.

37. The respondent-department is ordered to grant the petitioner the

benefit of ante-dated regularization under the 1996 policy w.e.f 01.02.1996 and

release all consequential benefits and arrears of pay along with interest of 6% per

anum from the date of accrual till the date of it's actual realisation within three

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.