Surinder Singh Vs P.R.T.C. and Anr.

In view of the grounds take n in the application, the prese n t application is allowed and the additional a f fidavit is ordered to be taken o n record. Re g istry is directed to place the sa m e at appropriate place.

¶28

Main

¶29

This order of mine shall disp o se of the above-mentioned w r it petitions as they arise from a similar factua l matrix. However, for the sake o f brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-111 3 3-2019.

¶30

The present writ petition has b een filed under Article 226/2 2 7 of the Con s titution of India with a prayer f o r issuance of a writ in the natu r e of certiora r i for quashing the order dat e d 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-25). Further fo r issuance of a writ in the na t ure of mandamus directing t h e respondent s to regularize the services of petitioner especially in view o f Pepsu Ro a d Transport Corporation (Conditions of appointment a n d Regulation s ), 1981 and in view of law laid down in CWP-8240-2008, Dalbir Singh Vs. PRTC and others deci d ed on 22.03.2010 (Annexure P - 22) along w ith Civil Appeal No.6779 of 2009, UT Chandigarh and others Versus Sampat and others decided on 0 3.04.2014 (Annexure P-23) a n d also in view of policies/instructions dated 04.03.1999, 23.01.200 1 , 15.12.2006 ((Annexure P-4 to P-6 & P-16) r espectively. 3. Learned counsel for the pet i tioner inter alia contends th a t petitioner w as initially appointed as Wate r man on part time basis in Pep s u Road Tran s port Corporation, Barnala Depot on 01.05.1982. He had be e n

¶31

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

3

¶33

CWP-3831 - 2016 and CWP-11133-2019

¶34

continuous l y performing duties for 8 hour s since the year 1982. Further, h e refers to o f fice order dated 02.12.2004 ( Annexure P-2) vide which, t h e - petitioner, other daily wagers and part t i me workers of the responden t Corporatio n were granted minimum p a y scale along with dearne s s allowance w .e.f. 01.11.2004, as such, this further fortifies the claim of t h e n petitioner f or regularization. Petitioner w as entitled to be regularized i terms of the regularization policy/instructi o ns dated 04.03.1999 (Annexu r e P-4), as the petitioner has rendered continu o us service of 10 years and fulfi l s the eligibil i ty criteria laid down in the p o licy. Further the policy of 19 9 9 provided a n explicit stipulation for dispe n sing with the services of su c h employees. He further placed reliance upon policy/instructions dat e d 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-5) issued by Government of Punjab, whi c h provides f o r regularization on completion of 3 years of service and it w a s further pro v ided that those daily wagers an d others category of workers w h o had compl e te three years of service were t o be regularization and in case t h e services of such employees is not required, their services may be terminat e d by followi n g the due process of law. The s ervices of the petitioner was n o t dispensed w ith in terms of the policy (Ann e xure P-5) which clearly fortifi e s his case, as he has rendered continuous ser v ice which is perennial in nature. 4. The claim of the petitioner is a lso required to be considered f o r regularizati o n in terms of the judgment ren d ered by Hon9ble Supreme Cou r t in State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 2006(3) SLR 1 , as petitioner h a s rendered m ore than 10 years of service. A fter passing of the judgment i n

¶35

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

4

¶37

CWP-3831 - 2016 and CWP-11133-2019

¶38

Uma Devi another instructions dated 1 5 .12.2006 (Annexure P-6) w a s n passed, pursuant to which a large number of employees of the Corporati o stand regu l arized. Further an identical i s sue in terms of the applicab l e regularizati o n policy was raised before this Court in CWP-1933-2014, Kanta Rani Versus State of Punjab and others , decided on 28.10.201 4 , wherein th i s Court has ordered the servic e s of the petitioner therein to b e regularized in terms of instructions/policy o f 1999 and 2001. 5. Learned counsel placed furt h er reliance upon the judgme n t rendered b y the Division Bench of this C o urt in LPA Nos. 95 of 2019 and other connected matters (O&M) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Surinder Singh and others , decided on 23.12.2022 a n d submits th a t even the part-time employees working for few hours in a d a y have been regularized in terms of polic y of 1999 and the responden t - Corporatio n has not controverted the fact t h at in any manner they have fill e d 25% vacancies in terms of policy of 199 9 . Further the Hon9ble Supre m e Court in Nihal Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2013(14) SCC 65 has authoritatively held that employer ha s not carried out the exercise i n compliance of the directions in Uma Devi (supra) and the claim of su c h employees for regularization cannot be de n ied. Further the petitioner fulfil l s the eligibil i ty set out in every policy, h o wever, in spite of serving t h e respondent - Corporation since 1982, the services of petitioner was n o t regularized . Similarly situated employees of the petitioners have approach e d this Court i n CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road

¶39

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

5

¶41

CWP-3831 - 2016 and CWP-11133-2019

¶42

Transport Corporation and another, de c ided on 03.09.2025 and CWP1968-2012, Sant Ram and others Versus State of Punjab and others , decided o n 02.09.2025. This Court has allowed their writ petitions b y holding tha t in the absence of sanctioned p o sts it cannot be used as a prete x t to deny th e regularization by relying up o n the judgment of Two Jud g e Bench of H on9ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India 2024 INSC 1034 and o rdered the regularization of si m ilarly situated employees of t h e

¶43

petitioner .

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporati o n submits th a t the policy of 1999 and 2001 i s totally misplaced in the prese n t case, as th e petitioner had retired on 31 . 10.2019 and during his servi c e period, he n ever sought his regularization. However, could not controve r t the fact th a t petitioner has rendered conti n uous service, perennial in natu r e and had al r eady been granted the minim u m pay scale w.e.f. 01.11.200 4 . Further, the counsel could not controv e rt the fact that petitioner h a d approache d this Court by way of filing C W P-2984-2003 and in complian c e thereof sp e aking order was passed to th e effect that the services of t h e petitioner s h all also be regularized as and w hen vacancies arises in terms o f policy date d 23.01.2001 (Annexure P-12). 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel fo r the petitioner(s) submits that t h e stand take n by the respondent-Corporatio n is contrary to the records as i s discernible from Annexure P-7, vide whic h it is clearly indicating the nam e s n of employe e s who have been appointed in t he year 1984 onwards have be e

¶45

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

6

¶47

CWP-3831 - 2016 and CWP-11133-2019

¶48

regularized , whereas petitioner-Sh. Rajind e r Parshad has joined the servi c e on 01.05.1 9 82 and petitioner-Sh. Surinder Singh in the year 1979 i.e. mu c h prior to 19 8 4, have not been regularized. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused t h e record with their able assistance. 9. It transpires that the petitione r No.1 joined service in 1979 a n d petitioner N o.2 joined on 01.05.1982 a nd have rendered continuou s , perennial service for decades following w hich Petitioner No.2 retired o n 31.10.2019 while the petitioner 1 is still in s ervice. 10. A Two Judge bench of the A pex Court in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P 2025 INSC 998 speaking th r ough Justice Vikram Nath ma d e the followi n g observations,

¶49

"17. B efore concluding, we think it n ecessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cann o t bala n ce budgets on the backs of th o se who perform the most bas i c and r ecurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and ends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency c e rtainly has a place in publ i c polic y , but it is not a talisman that o verrides fairness, reason and t h e duty t o organise work on lawful line s . 18. M oreover, it must necessarily b e noted that "ad-hocism" thriv e s wher e administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constrai n t" is invoked, the record shou l d sho w what alternatives were co n sidered, why similarly plac e d wor ke rs were treated differently ,a n d how the chosen course alig n s with A rticles 14, 16 and 21 of the C o nstitution of India. Sensitivity t o

¶50

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

7

¶52

CWP-3831 - 2016 and CWP-11133-2019

¶53

the h u man consequences of prolong e d insecurity is not sentimentalit y . It is a constitutional discipline th a t should inform every decisi o n affec t ing those who keep public offic e s running." (emphasis adde d )

¶54

The State, as a model employ e r, cannot be permitted to exploit n employees by keeping them in temporar y positions for decades and th e deny them r egularization. This amounts to a blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of t h e Constitution. The petitioner's duration of work showcases th a t the require m ent was continuous and pere n nial in nature. State as a mod e l employer s h ould be welfare oriented and n ot have exploited the petitione r s by extracti n g duties perennial in nature wit h out providing them with apt a n d suitable ap p ointments. 12. Reliance in this regard has been aptly placed by the learn e d counsel for the petitioner on judgements o f this court in CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another, d e cided on 03.09.2025 and CWP-1968-2012, Sant Ram and others Versus State of Punjab and others , decide d on 02.09.2025.

¶55

In view of the above discus s ion the Claim of petitioners i s squarely c overed by afore-cited judg m ents. The both petitions a r e accordingl y allowed. The respondents a re directed to ensure that t h e petitioners are regularised within six we e ks from the date of receipt o f certified copy of this order by the compet e nt authorities. If not regularis e d the petition e rs shall be deemed to be regul a rised on the expiry of six week s . Further, ev e n if the petitioners are retired t h ey cannot be denied the benefi t s

¶56

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

8

¶58

CWP-3831 - 2016 and CWP-11133-2019

¶59

of regularisation. The petitioners shall be e n titled to counting of past servi c e and other b e nefits as per judgments of this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.

¶60

Pending miscellaneous applic a tion(s), if any, shall also stan d s

¶61

disposed o f .

¶62

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 08, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶63

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.10.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surinder Singh v. P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh v. P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Dhbvn) and Others

Inderjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Veera Devi Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Uhbvnl and Others

Prem Pal Singh Mann Vs Hy.St. Coop Apex Bank Ltd.

Satyendra Kumar Sinha Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Vs Punjab State Power Corp Limited and Another