Dismissed¶25

Bikram Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025CWP/28728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: regularisation; outsourcing agency; contract employee; master-servant relationship; Punjab Adhoc Contractual Daily Wage and Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act 2016; “2016 Act” superseded; Nishan Singh v. State of Haryana, CWP No.1046 of 2025 (04.04.2025); State of Punjab; Government of Haryana principal Department. Relevant to denials of regularisation to workers engaged through outsourcing agencies notwithstanding their placement in a government department.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner admittedly worked with the outsourcing agency, there was no master-and-servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, and the petitioner cannot be treated as an employee of the respondent-State so as to grant him the benefit of the 2016 Act for regularisation of his services. ¶19

Bikram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, engaged on contract through an outsourcing agency while working with the principal Department of the Government of Haryana, is entitled to regularisation of his services under the Punjab Adhoc, Contractual, Daily Wage and Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

As already held by this Court in Nishan Singh (supra) and now followed here, employees working under an outsourcing agency are not entitled for the benefit of the regularisation policy.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

In the absence of a master-and-servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-State, outsourcing employees are not entitled for the benefit of regularisation.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., oral order), CWP-28728-2019 (O&M), decided 05-05-2025: The petitioner, Bikram Singh, working through a contractor/outsourcing agency though deployed with the principal Department belonging to the Government of Haryana, claimed regularisation under the Punjab Adhoc, Contractual, Daily Wage and Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016. Held (i) it being a conceded fact that the petitioner worked with the outsourcing agency, there was no master-and-servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, who therefore cannot be treated as an employee of the respondent-State so as to claim the 2016 Act benefit; (ii) following the coordinate-bench ruling in CWP No.1046 of 2025, Nishan Singh v. State of Haryana and ors. and connected cases (decided 04.04.2025), employees working under an outsourcing agency are not entitled to the benefit of the regularisation policy; counsel for the petitioner failed to rebut this settled principle. Petition dismissed; pending application(s), if any, disposed of. Speaking order; not reportable. (The respondent-State had also contended that the 2016 Act stands superseded and no longer exists.)

¶1

254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-28728-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05-05-2025

¶3

BIKRAM SINGH

¶4

........Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ........Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶8

Present: Mr. J.P.S Sidhu, Advocate f o r the petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG Punjab.

¶10

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral)

¶11

In the present petition, the p e titioner who is working through the Contracto r is claiming regularisation of h i s services under the Punjab Ad h oc, Contractual, Daily Wage and Work C h arged and Outsourced Emplo y ees Welfare A ct, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “ 2016 Act”).

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was working on the contract b a sis through the outsourcing age n cy but as he was working with the principa l -Department, which belongs to the Governm e nt of Haryana, he is entitled fo r regularisation of his services u n der the 2016 A ct.

¶13

Learned counsel for the re s pondent-State submits that fir s tly, 2016 Act h as already been superseded and is no longer existing and further, any employee who was working through the o u tsourcing agency, is not entitled for regularisa t ion of his services keeping in view the judgment of this Court w h ile passing o r der in CWP No.1046 of 2025 titled “Nishan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.” and other connected cases decided on 04.04.2025 wherein,

¶14

SAPNA GOYAL 2025.05.12 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

-2-

¶16

CWP-28728-2019 (O&M)

¶17

it has been held that the contractual employees working through the outsourcing agency are not entitled for regularisation of their services.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present case with their able assistance.

¶19

Once, it is a conceded fact that the petitioner was working with the outsourcing agency, there was no master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner cannot be treated as an employee of the respondent-State so as to grant him the benefit of 2016 Act so as to regularise his services.

¶20

Further, the said question of law has already been considered by this Court in Nishan Singh’s case (supra) wherein, it has been held that the employees working under the outsourcing agency, are not entitled for the benefit of regularisation policy.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut the said settled principle of law.

¶22

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances especially when there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-State hence, the outsourcing employees are not entitled for the benefit of regularisation.

¶23