← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/17711/2026disposed of

Balvir Singh v. State Of Punjab Through Its Secretary

2026-05-29Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 127+133(2 cases) Date of decision:29.05.2026 1.

CWP-17711-2026 Balvir Singh and another .....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents 2.

CWP-17809-2026 Ravinder Singh and others .....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :

Mr. Abhishek Singla and Ms. Preetleen Kaur, Advocates for the petitioners in both cases.

Mr. Ishan Kaushal, AAG Punjab.

Ms. Jasvir Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3 in CWP-177112026 (MOA filed). HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid writ petitions are being taken up together for adjudication, as they arise out of a common set of facts and involve identical questions of law.

However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP-17711-2026.

2.

The present writ petition(s) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners as Clerk and Safai Sewak along with all consequential benefits since they have been continuously working on the said post for last approximately 11 years without any break against the sanctioned post lying vacant in the Nagar Panchayat Boha as per Punjab Ad Hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016. Further to hold that the case of petitioners is squarely covered under the law settled by this Court in Manak Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2026 NCPHHC 6554 and Harjinder Singh Sidhu Versus Municipal Corporation Bathinda and others 2026 NCPHHC 056416 (Annexure P-4), wherein it has been held that providing fair and stable employment is imperative for the Government Departments, as engaging workers on temporary/contract basis for extended period exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has specifically argued that the petitioners have been continuously working since the years 20142016 and perennial work is being extracted from them, which is indispensable for the functioning of the respondent-authorities. The petitioners are neither part-time employees nor casual workers and,

therefore, are entitled to regularization in terms of the judgments passed by this Court in Manak Singh (supra) and Harjinder Singh Sidhu (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), at this stage, submits that they would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to consider and decide the representations dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-177112026) and 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-17809-2026) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period in the light of the aforesaid judgments.

4.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 submit that they have no objection in the event a direction is issued to respondents No.2 and 3/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-17711-2026) and 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-17809-2026) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period in terms of in Manak Singh (supra) and Harjinder Singh Sidhu (supra).

5.

In view of the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner(s) without commenting upon the merits of the case, both the present petitions are disposed of and the respondents No.2 & 3/competent authority are directed to hear and decide the representations dated 21.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-17711-2026) and 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2 in CWP-17809-2026) by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner in terms of aforesaid judgments within a period of three

months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Further the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioners. 6.

Needless to say, if the petitioners are found entitled to the relief sought, the same be granted forthwith by respondents/competent authority. 7.

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

8.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case(s).

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 29.05.2026 Puneet Chawla Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. :

Yes/No