Allowed¶25

Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CWP/17880/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of Beldar/daily-wager under Policy dated 01.10.2003 versus Policy of 2014; reinstatement with consequential benefits via Labour Court award (Reference No.70 of 2009, dated 05.07.2013); termination 01.09.2008; delay and laches no bar where remedies continuously pursued and legal notice dated 19.09.2019 served; Jai Ram and others v. State of Haryana, CWP-13617-2016 (30.07.2018) applied; CWP-17880-2021 (O&M); Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj; petition allowed on 07.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the petitioner's regularisation to be granted in terms of the judgment in Jai Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP-13617-2016), i.e., regularisation under the Policy dated 01.10.2003 instead of the Policy of 2014 date of 01.07.2014. ¶25

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his service under the Policy dated 01.10.2003 (Policy of 2003) instead of under the Policy of 2014 (w.e.f. 01.07.2014). +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The State counsel was not in a position to dispute that the petitioner's claim is otherwise identical to the case of the petitioners in Jai Ram and others (CWP-13617-2016), entitling him to regularisation under the Policy dated 01.10.2003.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Delay and laches do not bar the claim: the petitioner continuously pursued his rights — challenging the termination before the Labour Court, securing reinstatement with continuity, making representations and serving a legal notice upto 19.09.2019 before instituting the writ petition in 2021; the respondent-State was also obligated to consider his case under the policy then in force but regularised him only in June 2016 under the 2014 policy.

¶24

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the judgment in Jai Ram and others (supra), i.e., he is entitled to the regularisation claimed under the Policy dated 01.10.2003 rather than the 01.07.2014 date under the Policy of 2014.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral decision dated 07.05.2025) allowed CWP-17880-2021 filed by a Beldar/Keyman appointed on 16.06.1999 whose services were terminated on 01.09.2008 and restored by Labour Court award dated 05.07.2013 (Reference No.70 of 2009) with all consequential benefits but for back wages. Although an office order dated 29.06.2016 regularised him w.e.f. 01.07.2014 under the Policy of 2014, the Court held he was entitled to regularisation under the Policy dated 01.10.2003, his claim being identical to Jai Ram and others v. State of Haryana (CWP-13617-2016, decided 30.07.2018). Delay and laches were held no bar: the petitioner had continuously pursued his rights through the termination litigation, reinstatement with continuity, representations and a legal notice dated 19.09.2019 before filing the writ petition in 2021, and the State had failed to consider his case under the policy then in force.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

233

¶3

CWP-17880-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025

¶4

Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶9

Present :- Ms. Jaishree Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶10

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG Haryana.

¶11

¶12

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶13

Seeking regularisation of service under the Policy of 2003 instead of Policy of 2014, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶14

The undisputed facts which emerge from the present petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Beldar/Keyman with the respondentDepartment on 16.06.1999, his services was terminated on 01.09.2008 against which a reference was made to the Labour Court. The reference No.70 of 2009 was eventually answered in favour of the petitioner vide award dated 05.07.2013 directing the re-instatement with all other consequential benefits but for the back wages. The petitioner was thereafter re-instated in service and he submitted a claim for regularisation of his services. Vide office order endorsed on 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-6), services of the petitioner were regularised w.e.f. 01.07.2014. The petitioner

¶15

MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.12 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

¶17

233 CWP-17880-2021 (O&M)

¶18

is stated to have contacted the authorities regularly for his regularisation w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 01.07.2014 but as the needful was not done, a legal notice dated 19.09.2019 was served upon the respondents which was declined.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had continuously worked on the post of Beldar from 16.06.1999 till 01.09.2008. Hence, he was held eligible for being regularised in terms of the Policy dated 01.10.2003, however, as the said benefit had not been extended at the time when the petitioner was still continuing in service and eventually his services were terminated, therefore, the conferment of the benefits was delayed. Eventually, the award dated 05.07.2013 was passed in his favour, whereupon he was re-instated with continuity in service, hence, the petitioner became entitled to the benefits as accrued to him under the Policy dated 01.10.2003. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 30.07.2018 passed in CWP-13617-2016 titled as ‘Jai Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others’.

¶20

Even though the learned State counsel contends that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for seeking regularisation under Policy dated 01.10.2003, however, he is not in a position to dispute that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 01.09.2008 and at no point prior thereto, any order of regularisation was passed by the respondents even though the respondent-State was obligated to consider the cases of all employees under the Policy which was in force. Be that as it may, the petitioner had to thereafter pursue his right to continue to

¶21

MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.12 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

¶23

233 CWP-17880-2021 (O&M)

¶24

serve by challenging the order of termination which eventually culminated in his favour vide award dated 05.07.2013. The respondent authorities thereafter also did not consider the claim of the petitioner under the applicable Policy which created the right in his favour at the first instance, instead, the regularisation order was passed against the Policy of 2014 and that too in June-2016. A representation followed by legal notice was sent by the petitioner immediately upto 19.09.2019 followed by institution of instant writ petition. It cannot thus be said that the order of regularisation w.e.f. 01.07.2014 having been passed in 2016 and the writ petition having been filed in the year 2021 after approaching and pursuing the Department, that the claim is highly belated and should be declined only on the ground of delay and laches. He is not in a situation to dispute that the claim of the petitioner would otherwise be identical to the case of the petitioner(s) in the matter of Jai Ram and others (supra ).

¶25

The present petition is accordingly allowed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed in the matter of Jai Ram and others (supra )

¶26

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 07.05.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶27

MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.12 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Vision India Infratech Vs State of Haryana and Others

Krishan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ram Phal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amar Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another