State Of Punjab And Others v. Sarwan Ram And Others
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved On: 05.05.2025 Pronounced On: 16.05.2025 1.
LPA-2032-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SARWAN RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 2.
LPA-2073-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SOHAN SINGH .....Respondent 3.
LPA-2088-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SHANO DEVI .....Respondent 4.
LPA-2111-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TEHAL SINGH .....Respondent 5.
LPA-2112-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KULDEEP SINGH .....Respondent
-26.
LPA-2114-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 7.
LPA-2115-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 8.
LPA-2116-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SURINDER SINGH .....Respondent 9.
LPA-2133-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 10.
LPA-2148-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 11.
LPA-2149-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALVIR SINGH .....Respondent 12.
LPA-2150-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
-3MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 13.
LPA-2162-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 14.
LPA-2163-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GURSEWAK SINGH .....Respondent 15.
LPA-2441-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
CHHINDA SINGH .....Respondent 16.
LPA-2442-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 17.
LPA-2446-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TEJA SINGH .....Respondent 18.
LPA-2447-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
-4JAGDISH KUMAR .....Respondent 19.
LPA-2448-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
DHIR SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 20.
LPA-2449-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 21.
LPA-2456-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KALA SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 22.
LPA-2462-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
HARBANS KAUR AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 23.
LPA-2465-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 24.
LPA-2474-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BHAGA .....Respondent
-525.
LPA-2475-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
CHINDERPAL AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 26.
LPA-2480-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TARLOCHAN SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 27.
LPA-2481-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TARSEM LAL AND OTHERS .....Respondents 28.
LPA-2482-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 29.
LPA-2522-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
DAULAT RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 30.
LPA-2177-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SARDARA SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 31.
LPA-2179-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
-6Versus MALKAN SINGH .....Respondent 32.
LPA-2180-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SATPAL .....Respondent 33.
LPA-2184-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 34.
LPA-2200-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 35.
LPA-2203-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MUKHTIAR KHAN AND OTHERS .....Respondents 36.
LPA-2204-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 37.
LPA-2205-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SHER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents
-738.
LPA-2207-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
HARBANS KAUR .....Respondent 39.
LPA-2235-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMARJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 40.
LPA-2236-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
OM PARKASH .....Respondent 41.
LPA-2237-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
HARI RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 42.
LPA-2238-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BHAGIRATH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 43.
LPA-2239-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 44.
LPA-2240-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-8- ......Appellants
Versus
HARJEET AND OTHERS .....Respondents 45.
LPA-2241-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KAKA RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 46.
LPA-2246-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
NAJAR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 47.
LPA-2247-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GAMDOOR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 48.
LPA-2248-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALWINDER RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 49.
LPA-2274-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AKHTAR KHAN .....Respondent 50.
LPA-2283-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
LACHHMAN SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents
-951.
LPA-2298-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BUDH RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 52.
LPA-2299-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BHAGA AND OTHERS .....Respondents 53.
LPA-2301-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SALIM KUMAR .....Respondent 54.
LPA-2316-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
CHARNA AND OTHERS .....Respondents 55.
LPA-2317-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RAVI KUMAR SHARMA .....Respondent 56.
LPA-2319-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MAJOR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 57.
LPA-2336-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
-10Versus MEJAR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 58.
LPA-2337-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SOHAN SINGH .....Respondent 59.
LPA-2361-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 60.
LPA-2362-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 61.
LPA-2363-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 62.
LPA-2364-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
VEERA SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 63.
LPA-2366-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KASHMIRI LAL AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
-1164.
LPA-2367-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RANA SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 65.
LPA-2400-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 66.
LPA-2401-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
PAWAN AND OTHERS .....Respondents 67.
LPA-2402-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 68.
LPA-2403-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JEET SINGH,DIED, LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 69.
LPA-2405-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RAJ KUMARI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 70.
LPA-2406-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
-12Versus RAVI KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 71.
LPA-2407-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JITO AND OTHERS .....Respondents 72.
LPA-2408-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
NEETU SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 73.
LPA-2409-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TARSEM LAL AND OTHERS .....Respondents 74.
LPA-2411-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALWANT SINGH .....Respondent 75.
LPA-2592-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RESHAM SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 76.
LPA-2593-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SHER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents
-1377.
LPA-2594-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KULWANT SINGH .....Respondent 78.
LPA-2595-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMAR CHAND AND OTHERS .....Respondents 79.
LPA-2598-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
NISHAN SINGH .....Respondent 80.
LPA-2600-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GURPARTAP SINGH .....Respondent 81.
LPA-2601-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TILAK RAJ .....Respondent 82.
LPA-2602-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 83.
LPA-2582-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-14- ......Appellants
Versus
GURPARTAP SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 84.
LPA-2581-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KULDEEP SHARMA (died) Legal Heirs & Ors.
.....Respondents 85.
LPA-2573-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMANPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 86.
LPA-2574-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KARNAIL SINGH .....Respondent 87.
LPA-2578-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SHAM LAL AND OTHERS .....Respondents 88.
LPA-2577-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMRIK SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 89.
LPA-2555-2024 MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANOTHER ......Appellants
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents
-1590.
LPA-2560-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
HARBANS LAL AND OTHERS .....Respondents 91.
LPA-2561-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KULDEEP SHARMA .....Respondent 92.
LPA-2565-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MIT SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 93.
LPA-2545-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
TARLOK SINGH .....Respondent 94.
LPA-2591-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SARABJEET KAUR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 95.
LPA-2604-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GURMAIL SINGH .....Respondent 96.
LPA-2576-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
-16Versus BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 97.
LPA-2684-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BHAJAN LAL .....Respondent 98.
LPA-2617-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 99.
LPA-2628-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MAHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 100.
LPA-2630-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMAR NATH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 101.
LPA-2631-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALBIR SINGH .....Respondent 102.
LPA-2627-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AVTAR SINGH .....Respondent
-17103.
LPA-2773-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 104.
LPA-2774-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SANT RAM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS .....Respondents 105.
LPA-2775-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
PREM KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents 106.
LPA-2776-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 107.
LPA-2778-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JOGINDER SINGH (THROUGH LRS) .....Respondent 108.
LPA-2780-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JAGAT RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 109.
LPA-2750-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
-18Versus ROOP CHAND .....Respondent 110.
LPA-2736-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SITA RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 111.
LPA-2737-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 112.
LPA-2738-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JOGGA SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 113.
LPA-2739-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
GIAN SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 114.
LPA-2801-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
PREM CHAND AND OTHERS .....Respondents 115.
LPA-2802-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents
-19116.
LPA-2862-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BUDH RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 117.
LPA-2866-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
NISHAN SINGH .....Respondent 118.
LPA-2887-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MALKIAT SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 119.
LPA-2947-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
SARABJIT SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 120.
LPA-2986-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BALHARI .....Respondent 121.
LPA-3021-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MALOOK SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Respondents 122.
LPA-2948-2024 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
-20- ......Appellants
Versus
BHAJAN SINGH .....Respondent 123.
LPA-86-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JAGAT RAM AND OTHERS .....Respondents 124.
LPA-100-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JOG RAJ .....Respondent 125.
LPA-104-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 126.
LPA-169-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 127.
LPA-14-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL ......Appellant
Versus
LAL CHAND AND ORS .....Respondents 128.
LPA-19-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL ......Appellant
Versus
-21DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS .....Respondents 129.
LPA-34-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL ......Appellant
Versus
SADA SHIV YADAV AND ORS .....Respondents 130.
LPA-37-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
KULWANT SINGH SANDHU AND OTHERS .....Respondents 131.
LPA-128-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL ......Appellant
Versus
JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 132.
LPA-556-2025 THE PUNJAB STATE SPORTS COUNCIL ......Appellant
Versus
JASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 133.
LPA-301-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents 134.
LPA-337-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
BACHAN AND OTHERS .....Respondents
-22135.
LPA-492-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
PREM CHAND AND OTHERS .....Respondents 136.
LPA-55-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ......Appellants
Versus
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present:- Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab, (Through V.C.) and Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the appellant(s).
Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the appellants (in LPA Nos.14, 19, 34 128 & 556 of 2025).
Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Senior Advocate, with Mr. V.S. Mahal, Advocate;
Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate and Mr. Vishesh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent(s) (in LPA-2032, 2408, 2449, 2336, 2150, 2628, 2239, 2986, 2593, 2364, 2298, 2480, 2248, 2088 of 2024). Mr. Baldev Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2401, 2780, 2363, 2409, 2032 of 2024 and LPA 86 & 337 of 2025).
Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2577-2024).
Mr. Harbans Lal Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2073-2024).
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the respondent(s)(in LPA 37 & 128 of 2023). Mr. Vicky Arora, Advocate for Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2274 of 2024).
-23Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2801-2024 & 301-2025). Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for appellant(s) (in LPA-2555-2024) and for respondent (s) (in LPA-14, 19 & 34 of 2025). Mr. Ashu Rana, Advocate for respondent(s) (in LPA-2179-2024).
SUDHIR SINGH, J.
For the reasons given in the applications, the delay in refiling and filing of all the appeals, is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.
2.
This order shall dispose of the above noted batch of 136 intra Court appeals arising out of a common order dated 26.02.2024, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents (writ petitioners) were disposed of with the following directions:- i) This Court in the normal course cannot ask State to create or sanction posts. ii) The petitioners who had completed service of 10 years by the end of December'
2006, either at present are in service or have already retired, are entitled to regular post and they cannot be denied regularization on the ground of lack of sanctioned post or minimum education qualification. To avoid burden on State exchequer, it is clarified that from the deemed date of their regularization, they shall be entitled to minimum of pay
-24scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay till the date of this order and thereafter regular pay scale.
iii) The petitioners who are still in service but did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006 would form part of dying cadre created by 2023 Policy. The State, in view of long service of these employees, would not insist for minimum qualification. They from the date of completing service of 10 years would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance plus grade pay till the date they are regularized in terms of 2023 Policy.
iv) The petitioners who did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December'
2006 and during the pendency of present litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay from the date of completing service of 10 years till the date of their retirement or death.
v) The petitioners who have already been regularized by 31.12.2016 shall not be entitled to any additional financial benefit
-25because they are already getting higher amount of salary for last couple of years.
vi) The respondent-State shall not be liable to pay interest on arrears arising on account of re-fixation of pay.
3.
The aforesaid order was passed by noticing the facts in CWP-19238-2013. As LPA-2032-2024 arises out of the aforesaid CWP, the facts are taken from the said appeal. 4.
The respondents (writ petitioners) filed the aforesaid writ petitions before the learned Single Judge seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their services pursuant to the policy dated 18.03.2011. It was the case of the respondents (writ petitioners) that they had completed service of 1718 years on the date of filing of the writ petition and from time to time they had been transferred from one project to the other. It was further claimed by them that they were being paid wages at the rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner.
5.
The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the rival contentions of the parties, has disposed of the bunch of writ petitions, as noticed above.
6.
It may be noticed that when the appeal came up for hearing on 12.11.2024, the learned State counsel had made a statement that case of each of the employee was being assessed individually and the matter had been placed before the Hon'ble Chief
-26Minister of the State for final decision. The order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court reads as under:- "Learned counsel for appellant-State submits that as of now recommendation has been made for regularization of services of 75 respondents/writ petitioners and in so far as 506 persons are concerned, they are being considered to be adjusted under the Policy for Welfare of Adhoc, Contractual, Daily Wages, Work Charged and Temporary Employees, 2023. Claims of other writ petitioners in all writ petitions decided by a single judgment dated 26.02.2024 are being individually assessed.
There are admittedly number of petitioners in most of the writ petitions.
When asked as to whether the State still wishes to pursue the appeal, it is submitted that complete picture would be clear after the entire exercise has been undertaken. Learned counsel for appellants thus prays for an adjournment. At the same time it is submitted that as contempt petitions have been filed by some of writ petitioners, therefore said proceedings may be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks.
It is brought to our notice that Mr. Ajoy Sharma, IAS, Secretary Department of Forest and Wildlife Preservation, Punjab, had appeared before
-27learned Contempt Court on 18.10.2024 and stated that in terms of order dated 26.02.2024 process with regard to regularization of service of petitioners is in progress and that needful shall be done within a period of four months from that date. Learned counsel for the State submits that this process is likely to take another four weeks. Matter has been placed before the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State and final decision is likely to be taken. Keeping in view the above, these appeals are adjourned for 20.01.2025. It is open to the appellant-State to bring all these facts before learned Contempt Court on the date fixed.
7.
Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 18.03.2025, while noticing the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the following order was passed. "
Learned counsel for appellant-State informs that matter has still not been placed before the Cabinet due to certain objections raised by Department of Personnel. Learned counsel for State further submits that about four weeks are required to complete the entire process including decision to be taken by the Cabinet.
Let a specific affidavit in regard to the time line be filed by the Chief Secretary, Punjab, within next two weeks.
-28At request, adjourned to 05.05.2025.
Decision taken by Cabinet be placed on record on or before the next date of hearing. No further adjournment shall be afforded.
Keeping in view the above, learned Contempt Court is requested to adjourn the matter(s) as may be listed before it, beyond the date fixed in these appeals subject to filing of necessary affidavit by the Chief Secretary, Punjab in the present matter.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of above mentioned connected cases.
8.
In compliance with the said order dated 05.05.2025, a short reply by way of affidavit of under Secretary, Department of Forest and Wildlife Preservation, Punjab was filed. The relevant part of the said affidavit reads as under:- " 4. That in order to expedite the implementation of the directions given by this Hon'ble Court, after collating the records and necessary information, on 11.04.2025, a meeting under the chairmanship of Chief Secretary Punjab was held, wherein, following decision were taken:- i) The Personnel Department, Government of Punjab was directed to take immediate action with regard to regularization of 72 daily wage
-29workers covered under the 18.03.2011 policy. In terms of this decision 24 petitioners in the present bunch of cases would be the beneficiaries.
ii) With regard to granting security of tenure to 506 daily wage workers in terms of policy instructions of 2023, the Personnel Department, Government of Punjab was directed to immediately put up the file for orders.
In terms of this decision, 101 petitioners in the present bunch of cases would be the beneficiaries.
iii) With regard to the relaxation in educational qualification and age limit in the policy dated 16.05.2023 to ensure security of tenure to 378 petitioners who did not fulfil the age limit and educational qualification of the policy dated 16.05.2023. It was directed the case be put up before the council of Ministers for taking decision.
A copy of the minutes of meeting dated 11.04.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure A-2.
-305.
That insofar as decision taken in the meeting dated 11.04.2025 on the issues no. 4 (i) and 4 (ii) is concerned, it is the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab, who has to grant the final approval.
The file with complete data/information has been forwarded to his office.
6.
That further, insofar as the issue in terms of paragraph 4 (iii) herein above is concerned, the necessary decision has to be taken by the Cabinet/Council of Ministers. In this regard, the necessary Memorandum was prepared.
The complete file with data/information has been forwarded to the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister, who is the competent authority to convene the meeting of the Cabinet/Counsel of Ministers.
9.
Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the stand taken in the aforesaid affidavit stating that the matter is pending approval before the Authorities as indicated in Paras 5 and 6 above. 10.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petitions were filed in the years 2003-2013. The length of service of the respondents (writ petitioners) as indicated in the writ petitions, has not been disputed by the appellants-State.
-3111.
We may also notice that sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the appellant-authorities to consider the matter and take appropriate action/decision pursuant to the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. However, as noticed above, it is still not forthcoming as to why the authorities are delaying the matter. It is with this background that we have taken up the matters for final disposal.
12.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that while passing the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the settled judicial pronouncements that no person can be regularized in the absence of any sanctioned post. It is further argued that in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, it has been held that only those employees, who were appointed against sanctioned posts, having minimum educational qualification, could be considered for regularization. It is further argued that the respondents (writ petitioners) knew it very well at the time of their appointment that they were not appointed against the sanctioned posts and, thus, they have no vested right for regularization.
It is yet further argued that the respondents (writ petitioners) are working on daily wages and no policy has been framed by the Government/State as regards the regularization of the services of such daily wagers. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the concept of equal pay-equal work cannot be made applicable to the respondents (writ petitioners) as they were not working against the sanctioned posts.
-32judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is further argued that once the respondents (writ petitioners) were not having the requisite qualification for being considered for regularization under the policy, the directions contained in Para 47 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge are not sustainable. It is lastly argued that by issuing the mandate, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants-State to create the posts and regularize the respondents (writ petitioners), which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
13.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (writ petitioners), while defending the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge have vehemently contended that having worked for more than 30 years, the respondents (writ petitioners) cannot be denied the benefit of regularization merely on the basis of the fact that they have been/are working on daily wages. It is further argued that the stand of the appellants that the respondents (writ petitioners) were not appointed against the sanctioned posts is not tenable as it is settled principle of law that once an employee has been appointed to discharge the duties and he continuous working as such for years together, he is entitled to regularization of his services in terms of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and particularly the one in Uma Devi's case (supra). 14.
It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) that the stand of the appellants as regards the matter being under active consideration of the authorities
-33is nothing, but a tactic to delay and defeat the legal rights of the respondents (writ petitioners). Accordingly, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants-State. 15.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper book, including the impugned judgment. 16.
In our opinion, the question that arises for consideration by this Court is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in issuing the directions contained in Para No.47 of the impugned judgment as regards the regularization of the respondents (writ petitioners) and their entitlement to the minimum of pay scale, plus dearness allowance and the grade pay.
17.
The learned Single Judge, after noticing various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including the Uma Devi's Case (supra) framed the following four questions for consideration:- i) Whether this Court can direct the respondents to create/sanction the posts?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to be regularized/absorbed?
iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to minimum of pay scale including dearness allowance and grade pay?
iv) What relief can be granted to those who after having rendered service of more than 30 years, during the pendency of their petitions have superannuated or passed away?"
-34- 18.
Under question No.1, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellants-State had started making appointments on contract/ad-hoc/temporary/part time basis in every Departments and many teachers appointed on contract basis were getting miniscule in comparison to the regularly appointed peons. It was further observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of exigencies had permitted appointment on contract basis, but not as a routine practice. It was further observed that most of the respondents (writ petitioners) were appointed much prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) and the regularization policy of the State issued in 2001 became inconsequential post the said judgment. Thus, the State was duty bound to consider all the employees, who had completed 10 years of service without intervention by the end of 2006. Accordingly, it was held that in the normal course, the Court cannot direct the State to create or sanction the post.
19.
Under question No.2, while elaborately discussing a plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that once the employees had worked for a long period, it would be unjustified to deny them benefit of regularization on the ground of not possessing minimum qualification.
20.
As regards question No.3, the respondents (writ petitioners) were held entitled to the minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay provided they had completed 10 years of service.
-3521.
As regards question No.4 it was held that the respondents (writ petitioners) who had superannuated or passed away after completing 20 years of service were entitled to the benefit of minimum pay scale dearness allowance and grade pay for the period beyond service of 10 years and the respondents (writ petitioners) who had completed 10 years of service by 31.12.2006, but the records had either been destroyed or lost by the appellants-State, it was held that if such respondents (writ petitioners) were having documentary evidence in respect of completion of 10 years of service by them, they would be at liberty to submit available evidence to the appellants, who while deciding the question of 10 years of service shall consider it. 22.
After carefully and minutely going through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are perfectly justified for the following reasons:- (1) Once the appellants have not disputed the length of service of the respondents (writ petitioners), they cannot deny their legal right for being considered or entitled to regularization merely on the ground that they have been working as such on daily wages.
Grant of any indulgence on such count would amount to allowing the appellants to take benefit of their dominion.
(2) Even if the respondents (writ petitioners) had worked/have been working on daily wages, the
-36fact remains that they had rendered their services for the cause of the appellants and gave/ have given their prime years in discharge of such duties. Obviously they continued working as such, because the duties/works assigned to them were the requirements of the appellants. The appellants cannot be allowed to play according to their convenience. On the one hand, they have availed the services of the respondents (writ petitioners) and on the other, they are denying them the benefit of regularization, merely on the ground that the respondents (writ petitioners) were working as daily wages.
(3) The plea of the appellants that the respondents (writ petitioners) were appointed as daily wages, is not tenable for the reason that daily wagers are only employed as a stop gap arrangements for a limited period but in the instant case, the employees have either worked or been working for more than three decades and therefore, they cannot be termed to be daily wagers.
(4) It is not the case of the appellants that they have not considered the cases of the other similarly situated employees under different
-37policies from time to time. That being the position, the appellants cannot be heard saying that the respondents (writ petitioners) cannot be considered for regularization or they are not entitled to such benefit for want of sanctioned posts.
(5) It is settled in service jurisprudence that once an employee has worked for a considerable long period, his case is to be considered for regularization by the State by framing appropriate policy in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). The only caveat which bars such regularization is that the appointment to such posts must not be a back door entry and rather, the same should be after following the due procedure of law as provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(6) The deliberations on the part of the appellantState as regards the consideration of the cases of the respondents (writ petitioners) on individual basis is an exercise within their domain in order to comply with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, but as
-38noticed above, the present batch of appeals cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period. (7) We may also deal with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the directions given by the learned Single Judge in Para No.47 amount to creation of the posts.
Suffice to say that before coming to the conclusion as indicated in Para No.47 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, an extensive discussion and issue wise findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge and, thus, it has been held that though the Court cannot ask the State to create or sanction post(s), yet the respondents (writ petitioners) cannot be denied the benefit of regularization on the ground of lack of sanctioned post(s) or minimum educational qualification. It may further be observed that an employee, who has rendered more than 30 years service under the State, cannot be denied benefit of regularization on the ground of lack of requisite/minimum qualification. No doubt the parameter of requisite educational qualification is one of the conditions of the appointment to a particular post, but when an employee appointed against such posts has been working
-39for more than three decades, denying him the benefit of regularization on the ground of not possessing minimum educational qualification would be totally iniquitous.
23.
In view of the above, while answering the question framed above, it is held that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity. Consequently, the present batch of the appeals is hereby dismissed.
24.
No other point has been urged.
25.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
[ SUDHIR SINGH ] JUDGE [ ALOK JAIN ] JUDGE 16.05.2025 himanshu Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No