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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed both on merits as well as delay; the learned Single Judge's direction for regularization of the respondent in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003 stands. Application No. CM-4417-LPA-2025 for condonation of delay dismissed; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the State's appeal should succeed against the learned Single Judge's direction regularizing the respondent — a Clerk on daily wages since 26.07.2000 who had admittedly completed three years of service when the regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 was introduced — given that the respondent claimed regularization on parity independent of Ashish Sharma (supra), while the appellants urged that Ashish Sharma is under scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Court's answer

In terms of the judgments passed from time to time by the Supreme Court, lead case being Jaggo vs. Union of India and others (2024 INSC 1034), even if the appellants' case is that the respondent was working against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization, as it is not the case of the State that his services had been discontinued since 2000.

Ratio / Principle

After almost more than 25 years, it is expected from the State to take steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003, as well as in view of the judgment in Jaggo (supra).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regularization — Daily-wage employee — Letters Patent Appeal by State of Haryana against order dated 04.09.2024 of learned Single Judge directing regularization of respondent, a Clerk on daily wages since 26.07.2000 who had admittedly completed three years of service when the regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 was introduced. Held: The respondent's claim rested on parity under the policy, independent of Ashish Sharma (CWP-2158-2020), which is under scrutiny before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Applying Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, even if the respondent had worked against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization, since it was not the State's case that his services had been discontinued since 2000; after more than 25 years the State was expected to take steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003 and in view of Jaggo (supra). Appeal dismissed both on merits as well as delay; CM-4417-LPA-2025 (condonation of delay) dismissed; pending applications disposed of. (Paras 4 to 7)

LPA-1811-2025 (O&M)

Page 1 of 4

115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-1811-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 01.07.2025

STATE OF H ARYANA AND OTHERS

. . . . Appellant s Vs.

JITENDER K UMAR

. . . . Responden t

****

**CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ******

Present: M r. Saurabh Mohanta, DAG, H a ryana f or the appellants.

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

This a p peal assails the order dated 0 4 .09.2024 passed by the learne d Single J udge whereby it decided the w r it petition, preferred by the wri t petitio n er (respondent herein) in 2004 , claiming regularization on th e basis o f policy dated 01.10.2003. The l e arned Single Judge proceeded t o take i n to consideration the view exp r essed by this Court in Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP-2158-2020, for the p urpose of directing regularizatio n of the writ petitioner.

Learne d counsel for the appellants sub m its that the judgment passed i n the cas e of Ashish Sharma (supra) is u nder scrutiny before the Hon’bl e Supre m e Court in relation to LPAs de c ided by this Court subsequently . He, therefore, submits that the order pa s sed by the learned Single Judg e deserv e s to be set aside.

We ha v e considered the submissions an d carefully gone through the fact s of the p resent case. We find that it is t h e case of the respondent that h e

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1811-2025 (O&M)

Page 2 of 4

was w o rking as a Clerk on daily wage basis since 26.07.2000, and th e State h ad initiated a policy on 01.10 . 2003 granting regularization t o person s who were working on daily wa g e basis and had completed thre e years o f service as on the date of public a tion of the policy.

Admitt e dly, the respondent had comple t ed three years of service on th e date w h en the policy was introduced, i. e . 01.10.2003. The three years o f service was on the post of Clerk. He, therefore, claimed regularizatio n based o n parity, independent of the jud g ment passed in Ashish Sharma (supra). If we examine the case of the r espondent, we find that in term s of the j udgments passed from time to t ime by the Supreme Court, lea d case being Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 INSC 1034 , e ven if the appellants’ case is t hat he was working against a n unsanc t ioned post, he would be entitle d to regularization as it is not th e case of the State that his services had be e n discontinued since 2000.

Now a f ter almost more than 25 years, it is expected from the State to tak e steps a nd pass orders of regularizatio n in terms of the policy date d 01.10.2003, as well as in view of the judgment passed in the case o f Jaggo (supra), wherein the Supreme Co u rt held as under:

“26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) s ought to curtail the practice o f backdoor entries and e nsure appointments adhered to co n stitutional principles, it i s regrettable that its principles ar e often misinterpreted or m isapplied to deny legitimate c laims of long-serving e mployees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “ illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically h eld that employees in irregular a ppointments, who were e ngaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served c ontinuously for more than ten yea r s, should be considered fo r regularization as a one-time measure. However, the

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1811-2025 (O&M)

Page 3 of 4

l a udable intent of the judgment i s being subverted when i n stitutions rely on its dicta to in d iscriminately reject the c laims of employees, even i n cases where their a ppointments are not illegal, but m erely lack adherence to p rocedural formalities. Governme n t departments often cite t h e judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested r ight to regularization exists for temporary employees, o verlooking the judgment's expl i cit acknowledgment of c ases where regularization is ap p ropriate. This selective a pplication distorts the judgmen t 's spirit and purpose, ef fectively weaponizing it against employees who have r endered indispensable services ov e r decades. 27. In light of these consid e rations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government d epartments to lead by e xample in providing fair an d stable employment. E ngaging workers on a tempor a ry basis for extended p eriods, especially when their r o les are integral to the o rganization's functioning, n o t only contravenes i n ternational labour standards but also exposes the o rganization to legal challenges a n d undermines employee m orale. By ensuring fair e mployment practices, g overnment institutions can r e duce the burden of u nnecessary litigation, promote j o b security, and uphold t h e principles of justice and fairne s s that they are meant to e mbody. This approach aligns with international standards a nd sets a positive precedent fo r the private sector to fo llow, thereby contributing to th e overall betterment of l a bour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above dis c ussion and findings, the a ppeals are allowed. The impugn e d orders passed by the H igh Court and the Tribunal are s e t aside and the original a pplication is allowed to the follo w ing extent:

i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are q uashed;

ii. The appellants shall b e taken back on duty fo rthwith and their services regularized forthwith.

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-1811-2025 (O&M)

Page 4 of 4

H owever, the appellants shall n ot be entitled to any p ecuniary benefits/back wages for t he period they have not w orked for but would be entitled t o continuity of services fo r the said period and the same w o uld be counted for their p ost-retiral benefits.”

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed bot h on merits as well as delay.

Applic a tion No. CM-4417-LPA-2025 f or condonation of delay i s accordi n gly dismissed.

All pe n ding applications also stand disp o sed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE

01.07.2025

Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable? Yes/No

MOHIT GOYAL 2025.07.02 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document