High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/34071/2024allowed

Premwati v. State Of Haryana And Others

2025-12-31Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil32 pages

!"#"$"%""

""$ " &

$ &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& + +,

#""-"$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() &

("%"""$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & ++ ( $.

/" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

"-""/0"-"/ &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

1& 2

("$* &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() ,& 1211

"/"- &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() +& ,2 ( $( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() 2&

,+1

""( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & 11 + *( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& +,,

"("!"$" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & +1 *!"%( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() &

("(.

/" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & 1+,

.(".

/""$" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & 2+ 2 !*"$"(("$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

1& 1 +

$("$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() ,& 2

!"0("

!$* &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$" &&&&&( $'() +&

("" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() 2&

# $ &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& , 1

( (.

/" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& 2

"/"-0"/"-( ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& +,+

*" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& ,1,

"."0".""- &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& ,2

#"# #" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

2 !*"$* &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

1& ,1

( #"/ &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

,& , /" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

+& ,

/"!

("/" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

2& 1 1

*!$ &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & 2

(" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

, &

/ $* ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & 2

$"" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & + 2 ((""$" &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & ,12 / .(.

/""$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() & (("-"$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

+ 1& , ("(.

/""$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() ,& 222 (""/ &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() +& $""/"$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() 2&

/"."( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'() &

"/"- &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

& 212

#""("$ ( &&&&& '() *( ( (" "%"""$ (& &&&&&( $'()

# $ "/3 4#-/&!

(("$/

$ - % & '( ' )"*+ '+ # "+ '($+"+ '* ' "+ ',*,"+ '-). "*+ '+ ' "+ '/+ "+ '% +"+ '# ( "+ ' 0 "+ '/

, "+ '(*' "+ " '1 2 0 "+ '% 0 "+ '# , "+ '+ . "+ '( 30"+ '' )0"+ '#* "+ '1*, )"+ '*0 "+ '(*# "+

'* ) "+ '0*4 "+ '4*# "+ '* # "+ '3*3 "+ '4)* )"+ '( *"+ '- 3 "+ '#

3 "+ '4)0"+ '* *"+ '( ' "+ '' "+ '*

* "+ '* *"+ '/ ( "+ ''

"+ '1*' "+ '/ , "+ '2,0

"+ '3 0

"+ '/ 3 "+ '1 , "+ '' 0"+ '+),*"+ '* *"+ " '* *"+ '( ' "+ '' "+ 56 '4)3 "+ +0/ '' 2) , "4+0/ '(4*"4+0/ '1* "+ '(

) 7"+ # 8 ("$/

$ -5!'

"-) - " .

$: ;

1 " $ )

6 $

+ 8<= . > certiorari"mandamus $

? / 0

;

$ !

"# 3.

) ! "

) < % @ < $:

% @ )

0 / " "

? "

=" =8" A8" A8 $ $ "

" " $ ;

! " )

$ / " B

? $ <

8 " $ 5+

C %:=6 )

? * 0 #

= +$ :

" . $

$ %

A 2

$ $

) 8

) $

;

$ : $

? "

> ;

$ " " $

? $ 2

$ > $ $

? B "

)

? "

$ D'((

)* + , D -

. ./ " B

$ . * .

$ $

? "

$ > $ )

? "$ $ $ "

789 9:

$ $

? 0 /

? @

" > $

? + " '

(

/ $

$ ) )$

$)" $

;

? 2

? = =8 $

? " $ ;

;

$ " $ ;

" ) > /

;

> $ ) % @ < $

@ " 0 E.B ;

>>;

" " " $ '

(

$ )" ;

;

$ * D0

1 % 2 0( , ) * 3 -$.

.4 5

) * " ,, 6

$ 8 > $

$ $ .

? " "$

$ "

$ $ = 2

$ > .

C " "

" +& /

$ "86; + $ $

$ " $

$ * /<; 9::;;

!=;;8;

;

" . :$

C $ $ :) * . $ $ "

$C ;

1 > 07 8

. )93:* : " C $

" *

? "

C $

? "

: " ;

" . C

& .1

5 4

Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily in declining to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization of service despite his longstanding engagement and continuous performance of departmental duties? "1

1 ;% > " *

F " $ " "

$) "

* $ $ "

$ $ $ " "

1 .

) " ) ;

" ;

$ $

, " " $ + 8 . $

$ $)" .

$ Different High Courts as well as Supreme Court prior to 2006 in many cases directed States/Union of India to regularize part time/work charged/adhoc/contractual/daily wage employees considering their long and considerable length of service and continuity of work. Reconciling Uma Devi 25.

In the year 2006, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in

' 7

-4 5 ) ,* adverted to the question of regularization of temporary/part time/adhoc/daily wage employees. It was

-4

(supra) that

$$<

G -4

(supra) "

F ?

;

)

" *

) :

C ) " ) ) 8 !

" D : H $ $ In State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Supreme Court noticed misuse by the State and its agencies, noncompliance of order of the Apex Court and denying benefits to the employees. The Court noticed that the object as such was two folds. Firstly, those persons who had put in more than 10 years of services were to be considered for regularization

+ in view of the long service. Secondly, it was to ensure that departments do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily wage, adhoc or casual basis. It was held that persons who had worked for more than 10 years on 10.04.2006 were entitled for regularization and necessary directions were issued in the said case and those not entitled because of lack of educational qualifications were to be regularized on a lower post. 0 ;

(supra)C

D H

$ " : C

$ $

? "$ "$ " "D H " )

= > " B

$ )/ "

) $

4 C

? " B

? " "$ $ $

-4 5 )1&* 0 ;

' )1&* B )

" $

A * $

<4 <

= :

9 "

* -45

)1&* $

$ C C $ ;

+ 8 . * " " "

? : "

;

* "

+ I856 . !

$ . &: "(32). In addition to the above, even principle of natural justice, too demand that the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of regularization of services when their similarly placed employees have been granted the said benefit.

(33). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of service in view of the policy dated 01.10.2003 as amended on 10.02.2004 issued by the Government of Haryana and to pass necessary orders regularizing their services, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all the benefits of regularization and consequential relief to which they are eligible including the arrears of salary.

(34). This case is also being peculiar wherein ClassIV employees are forced to undergo multiple round of litigation for their claim to which they became eligible in the year 2003 and are fighting for their legal rights for two decades, this Court cannot close its eyes to the pain and sufferings and the harassment with which this strata of society

has been dealt with, needs to be compensated, though cannot be done so by any means after such a long number of years, the respondent No.3 shall pay 6 % interest per annum on the arrears from the date it became due till the date of its realization to which the petitioners are found entitled on regularization into service." * "

$ C "

-4 5

)1&* $;

* . C .

: $

? > " : "

? $

" ;

$ >

" " ):" :

? ;8= 9( *

C ) "D H" $ F > D/ $

1(% $

2&&

/ ,

" * .

* * ? "

$ "

4 * $ " "

) C )

$ < $ +

) $ $ 9>:8 6;-= 32.

The Supreme Court recently in 'Jaggo v. Union of India and others', 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, discussing the dicta of the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra) has held that no employee can be kept temporary for an indefinite period. An employee has right to be considered for regularization considering the length of service rendered. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as parttime or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their

competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially adhoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization.

In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has

performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below: "6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case."

XXX XXX XXX XXX

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment.

Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted

with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

XXX XXX XXX XXX

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address shortterm or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

0 1

?+4&?

;%# Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

# Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

;"7

# Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

- $1 1"

# Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

! "

< !

# Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a onetime measure.

However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades."

33.

Also, in "Union of India Vs. K. Velajagan And Ors.", 2025 SCC OnLine SC 837 decided on 04.02.2025 the Supreme Court has observed that decision in Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularization. Relevant extract is as under: The decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 as held in a recent decision of this Court in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, (2025) Live Law SC 153 cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularization.

Uma Devi(supra)

C $ * $ * . / )1&*

* %

$ " + D4

$ 9 )*

3 * . -4 5 )1&*

? "

)

$ $ "

$ $

, "35. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 3040 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the workcharged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one."

8 > $

-4 5 @ " )1&*

$ :

? <

)< ) < < " = '" $ -4

)1&*" * .

6 99 )* +

$C $

$ $ "

$ "

$ <;

$ $ " $ $ $

25. Before parting with the case we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in Government Service.

+ The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment trough the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of regularly selected candidate can not be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.

Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirement of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.

An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.

The proper course would be that each State prepares a scheme, if one is not already in vogue, for regularisation of such employees consistent with its reservation policy and if a scheme is already framed, the same may be made consistent with our observation herein so as to reduce avoidable litigation in this behalf. If and when such person is regularised he should

be placed immediately below the last regularly appointed employee in that category, class or service, as the case may be." A :7

$ "$

$$ );

" $

?'((

)* + ,

> " +C. $

$ * "

" ;

? >

? $ " :

$ : C

? ;

" $

$86-

+ $ *

. * 0

? "

$ "

$ * "$ " C "

> "

* C

" $

" $ $ $

" $

$ $ " $

$ $ $ " " :$

+ "

$ 989(

" $

(

B * B

@ C $ nyaya5

6"anrishamsya5 : 6" $ lokasangraha 30 B $ $ "

" ") ? )

$ * $

" $ $ $ $ $

$ "

;

" *

) :

? C -4

)1&*C 0 ;

)1&*+ * B $ D H

) " " . " * $

+ I8 . >

$ $

$ * C $ $ *

> . "

# C

$ " :* C $

? /

$ C " *

$ $ $

8=;

! $"

$ $ A B

? " "

8 $

$ $ "

"$ " "

8""

= / "

$ $

" $

;

$ "

C " J8K

$ ?

$ )

% 56" " + $

'("$/

$ -) & &

$ Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No