Gurjinder Mohan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

CM-12307-CWP-2025

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for disposing of the main writ petition in terms of the judgment Jaggo vs Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online (SC) 3826, as the case of the petitioner, who has rendered more than 30 years of service, is squarely covered by the said judgment and to direct respondent No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Work Supervisor under the policy of regularization dated 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-8) with all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the main case was adjourned sine die to await the outcome of LPA No.2802 of 2024, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.05.2025 and as such, he has moved this application for disposal of the main writ petition.

Heard.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, relevant documents and the binding precedent laid down in Jaggo’s case (supra), this Court finds that the petitioner’s case squarely falls within the ambit of the said judgment and even LPA No.2802 of 2024 has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.05.2025. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of and the main case is taken on board today itself for hearing.

CWP-5616-2019 (O&M)

PRAYER

Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the respondents in not considering and regularizing the services of the petitioner. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought, directing the respondents to consider and regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the government instructions issued from time to time and also on the basis of his continuous length of service because various other employees have been considered and regularized as per the Government Instructions dated 18.03.2011 read with Instructions dated 21.11.2011, whereas the claim of the petitioner is not being considered for regularization.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was engaged for 89 days on work-charge basis on 18.10.1995 (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.4 – Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board (in short ‘Board’). Thereafter, the post of Work Supervisor was advertised by respondent No.4/Board in the year 1997 (Annexure P-2) and the petitioner being fully eligible applied for the same. Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Work Supervisor. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of respondent No.3 i.e. Municipal Council Kharar for executing the work of sewerage and water supply. On 17.08.2012, a Resolution No.51 was passed by respondent No.3 recommending the case of the petitioner for regularization. On 11.10.2012 (Annexure P-2/A), the respondent No.3 sought transfer of the services of petitioner from respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 as respondent No.3 was not having any Supervisor to look after the work of sewerage and water supply under its jurisdiction. Further respondent No.3 has clearly indicated its intention to adjust the petitioner. Acting on the communication sent by respondent No.3, the petitioner was relieved by respondent No.4 on 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-3) and he give a fresh joining report to respondent No.3 along with all drawings of water and sewerage lines. On 01.11.2012, the petitioner joined as Work Supervisor with respondent No.3. On 26.12.2016, the respondent No.3 sought service record of the petitioner from respondent No.4 for regularization of his services. Vide order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-7), the identically circumstanced employees who were appointed as Work Supervisor in the Sewerage Board like the petitioner were regularized on his transfer to Municipal Council, Morinda and similarly vide order dated 30.12.2016 (Annexure P-6), the juniors of the petitioner, who were working as Pump Operators with respondent No.4/Board were regularized. The State of Punjab has issued the regularization policies on various dates i.e. 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-8), 13.12.2006 (Annexure P-9), 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-10) and 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-11), however, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has not been accepted till date in spite of the fact that the petitioner being fully eligible and fulfills all the conditions specified in the respective policies. In February, 2008, the petitioner also submitted a representation for regularization, which remain unheeded. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra).

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization as the petitioner has failed to pinpoint the policy under which his claim for regularization has to be considered.

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.3, however, the reply of respondent No.3 is available on record, which does not controvert the stand taken by the petitioner. Rather in para 9, it has been indicated that Resolution No.46 dated 29.12.2016 was passed by respondent No.3 for regularizing the services of the petitioner, however, when the details with regard to services of the petitioner was sought by respondent No.2 it could not be furnished as the petitioner was initially appointed in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner is continuously serving respondent No.3 since 17.08.2012 and is in more than ten years of continuous service, looking after the maintenance work of water supply and sewerage, which is perennial and essential in nature. Prior to that the petitioner has worked with respondent No.4 after his selection on 31.03.1987 and as such, he has completed more than 28 years of continuous service. 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 Article 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’s case (supra), Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.

Recently, a Two-Judge 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:

“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….

** ** **

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.

** ** **

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 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.

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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

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. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s case (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. 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.

CONCLUSION

In the wake of the above discussion and findings, the present petition is allowed. The impugned action of the respondents in not considering and regularizing the services of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioner 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 Court in Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.