Meena Kumari and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 2 2 6 of the Con s titution of India for issuance o f a writ in the nature of certiora r i n to quash th e action of the respondents in not implementing the regularizati o orders date d 28.12.2016 (Annexure P-3) is s ued to the petitioners pursuant t o the Punjab Government Notification dated 24.12.2016 (Annexure P-2), a n d for a writ o f mandamus directing the resp o ndents to allow the petitioners t o continue in service with regular pay scale a n d consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petiti o ners inter alia contends that t h e petitioners were appointed on contract ba s is as TGT (Social Science) a n d

¶16

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2

¶18

CWP-1858 2 -2017

¶19

PRT in the year 2009 in Shivalik Model Senior Secondary School, Nang a l, n run by Mu n icipal Council, Nangal. Their s e rvices were renewed annually. I light of th e Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Wo r k Charged a n d Outsourced Employees’ We l fare Act, 2016 (hereinafter “t h e 2016 Act ” ), the Municipal Council p a ssed Resolution No. 9 dat e d 26.12.2016 and issued regularization ord e rs on 28.12.2016. However, t h e Director, L o cal Government, Punjab, vide order dated 26.04.2017, kept t h e resolution in abeyance and directed m a intenance of status quo as o n 26.12.2016 . The petitioners thereafter cont i nued on contract till 09.08.201 7 , after whic h no further extension was gra n ted and thereafter continued t o work after the interim order was grante d by this court on 21.09.201 7 . Learned co u nsel submits that the petitione r s have been working for over 15 r years, their work is perennial, and denial o f regularization amounts to unfa i labour pra c tice and violates Articles 14 a nd 16 of the Constitution. T h e n counsel pl a ces his reliance on the judgement rendered by this court i Pankaj Kumar Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others CWP - 21660-2023 . It is further contended that t h e petitioners are entitled to t h e minimum o f the regular pay scale on the p rinciple of “equal pay for equ a l work.” 3. Per contra , learned counsel fo r the respondents submits that t h e petitioners’ claim is devoid of merit as the regularization order dat e d 28.12.2016 was explicitly issued subject to the approval of Resolution No. 9 by the Di r ector, Local Government, Pu n jab, which approval was nev e r granted. T h e Director, vide order dated 26.04.2017, rightly directed that t h e

¶20

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

3

¶22

CWP-1858 2 -2017

¶23

said resolu t ion be kept in abeyance and st a tus quo ante be maintained, int e r alia, becau s e the vires of the 2016 Act its e lf is under challenge before th i s Hon’ble C o urt in CWP No. 4187 of 2017, which is pending adjudication. I t is further s u bmitted that the State Govern m ent has taken a policy decision t o repeal the said Act, as affirmed in an affid a vit dated 16.08.2018, annexed a s Annexure R -1. Learned counsel further su b mits that the petitioners, havi n g accepted c o ntractual engagements with ful l knowledge of the terms, cann o t now claim regularization as a matter of r ight, further the petitioners a r e guilty of s uppressing the material fact of the Director’s order dat e d 26.04.2017 , and thus, are not entitled to a n y equitable relief. On the clai m for equal pay, it is submitted that th e petitioners, being contractu a l employees governed by their specific term s of appointment, are not entitl e d to the regul a r pay scale.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused t h e record wit h their able assistance. It transpi r es that the core issue is wheth e r the petitio n ers are entitled to regularizatio n and equal pay benefits despi t e the subseq u ent keeping in abeyance of th e resolution and the pendency o f challenge t o the 2016 Act ?

¶25

Admittedly the petitioners st a rted working on contract bas i s with the re s pondents in the year 2009 and have been continuously worki n g as contract u al employees for more than 16 y ears. 6. This Court has been constrain e d to observe a trend where lo n g term employees are engaged on ad hoc bas i s, in spite of the perennial natu r e of the servi c es rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employe r ,

¶26

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

4

¶28

CWP-1858 2 -2017

¶29

cannot be a llowed to exploit its temporary e mployees under the garb of la c k of sanctio n ed posts or inability of the employees to meet education a l qualificatio n s for regular posts, when they h ave been consistently serving i t s instrument a lity for a significant time peri o d. Such an approach would b e violative o f fundamental rights of the te m porary employees enshrined i n Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, tempora r y employees cannot be forced to bear the br u nt of lack of financial resourc e s when the S tate had no qualms about cont i nuously taking advantage of t h e services r e ndered with regard to integ r al and recurring work of t h e concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on t h e judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supr e me Court in J aggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.

¶30

Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 173 5 speaking through Justice Vikram N ath has held as follows:

¶31

“ 11. Furthermore, it must be c larified that the reliance p laced by the High Court on U m adevi (Supra) to non-suit t h e appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of pub l ic employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrar y refusals to sanction posts d espite the employer's own ack n owledgement of need and d ecades of continuous reliance o n the very workforce. On t h e other hand, Umadevi (Su p ra) draws a distinction b etween illegal appointments a n d irregular engagements a nd does not endorse the p e rpetuation of precarious e mployment where the work i t self is permanent and the S tate has failed, for years, to pu t its house in order. Recent

¶32

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

5

¶34

CWP-1858 2 -2017

¶35

d ecisions of this Court in Jagg o v. Union of India and in S hripal v. Nagar Nigam, Gha z iabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra ) cannot be deployed as a s h ield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad h ocism”, the use of outsourcing a s a proxy, or the denial of b asic parity where identical duties are exacted over ex tended periods. The principle s articulated therein apply w ith full force to the present cas e .... ** ** **

¶36

13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

¶37

_ ** _

¶38

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary 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 cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring 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 of ends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in publ i c policy, but it is not a t a lisman that overrides fairnes s , reason and the duty to o rganise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necess a rily be noted that “ad- h ocism” thrives where administ r ation is opaque. The State D epartments must keep a nd produce accurate e stablishment registers, muste r rolls and outsourcing a rrangements, and they must e x plain, with evidence, why t h ey prefer precarious engage m ent over sanctioned posts w here the work is perennial. If “ constraint” is invoked, the r e cord should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were t r eated dif erently, and how t h e chosen course aligns with A r ticles 14, 16 and 21 of the

¶39

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

6

¶41

CWP-1858 2 -2017

¶42

C onstitution of India. Sen s itivity to the human consequences of prolonged inse c urity is not sentimentality. I t is a constitutional discipline that should inform every d ecision affecting those who kee p public of ices running.”

¶43

(Emphasis supplied)

¶44

The extended ad-hocism of k eeping daily wage workers o r contractual employees on temporary rol l s for decades while extracti n g regular work is not only unconstitution a l but undermines equality a n d dignity. The State and its instrumentalit i es being model employer can’t perpetuate s uch exploitation and use excu s es like financial constraints, n o n availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (supra) as t a lisman to deny well deserv e d regularisati o n on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work a t par with t h eir counterparts working on r egular posts. Reference in th i s regard can also be made to the judgment r e ndered by the Hon’ble Supre m e Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 , a Divisi o n Bench of t h is Court in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinat e bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others i n CWP-19238-2013 decided o n 26.02.2024 .

¶45

The Municipal Council co r rectly passed a resolution t o n regularize t he petitioners. The Director’s order placing this resolution o hold, base d only on the fact that a leg a l challenge is pending, cann o t override th e petitioners’ accrued rights. Th e mere pendency of a challenge t o a statute, w hen no court has ordered a sta y against its implementation, do e s

¶46

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

7

¶48

CWP-1858 2 -2017

¶49

not invalid a te rights already established u nder it. The petitioners met all eligibility r equirements under the 2016 A ct as of 24.12.2016 and the i r entitlement was firmly established on that d ate. 10. In the wake of above discuss i on and findings, this Court is o f the conside r ed opinion that the present pet i tion deserves to be allowed. T h e respondent s are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners wi t h effect fro m 28.12.2016 (the date of th e regularization order) with all consequent i al benefits including seniority, a rrears of salary, and allowance s ; within six w eeks from today. If no order o f regularization is passed within 6 weeks fro m today, the petitioners shall b e deemed to be regularized. T h e petitioners s hall be entitled to counting of p ast service and other benefits a s per judgm e nts rendered by 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 .

¶50

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also sta n d disposed o f .

¶51

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶52

January 27, 2026 Monika/P.C

¶53

Whether speakin g /reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reporta b le. : Yes/No

¶54

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.06 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Meena Kumari and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Kumari and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

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

Bhavesh Bansal and Others Vs Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Anr.

Monika Puri @ Monika Kapoor and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Avtar Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parkasho Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs Pspcl and Ors.

Rameshwar Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.