Disposed

Punjab Health System Corporation v. Kartar Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2026LPA/1546/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employer appealed against Single Judge's direction to consider long-serving Computer Operators for regularization. Relying on Supreme Court rulings on employees with over ten years of service, the Division Bench upheld the direction with an eight-week timeline and barred termination without such consideration.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; exemption granted; Single Judge's order upheld—appellant to consider respondents' regularization within eight weeks and pass appropriate orders if work and conduct unobjectionable.

Punjab Health System Corporation Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(109) CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026 Date of Decision : 09.07.2026

¶5

Punjab Health System Corporation

¶6

...Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kartar Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Ankit Chowdhri, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. R.K. Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Ahuja, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

¶15

CM-3774-LPA-2026

¶16

Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 05 days in filing the present appeal.

¶17

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 05 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶18

CM-3773-LPA-2026

¶19

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶20

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶21

¶22

Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 05 days in re-filing the present appeal.

¶23

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 05 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

¶24

CM-3776-LPA-2026

¶25

Application for exemption from filing certified copies of judgment is allowed, as prayed for.

¶26

LPA-1546-2026

¶27

The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5307 of 2026, wherein, direction has been given to consider the case of the respondents for regularization and in case, such consideration is not given within six weeks time frame granted, the respondents will be treated as regular employees ipso facto.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though, it is a conceded fact that the respondents were appointed in the year 2011 after due advertisement dated 05.01.2011 for the post of Computer Operators and are still continuing on such post but, respondents did not get an indefeasible right to claim regularization. Learned counsel submits that grant of benefit of regularization by learned Single Judge has been done without even considering the fact whether there are regular posts available

¶29

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶30

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026 3

¶31

with the appellant or not hence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to consider the claim of the respondents for regularization in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported as 2025 (1) SLR 1, decided on 20.12.2024, is incorrect.

¶32

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

¶33

Certain averments, which have been made in LPA itself, clearly shows that in the year 2011, selection was made by the appellants for the post of Computer Operators by advertising the post. It is also a conceded fact that even as of now, the respondents are working on such post and have completed approximately 15 years of service.

¶34

The question which arises is whether, once the respondents have completed 15 years of service whether, they are entitled for consideration for regularization of their services in terms of the settled principle of law or not. The said claim is no longer res-integra and even the learned Single Judge has noticed the settled principle of law on the issue as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo’s case (supra) as well as Shirpal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144, decided on 31.01.2025. The said judgments clearly hold that an employee who has rendered 10 years of service, is entitled for consideration for regularization of his/her services. The relevant paragraph of the judgment in Jaggo’s case (supra) is as under :-

¶35

“xxx

¶36

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶37

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶38

¶39

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been reproduced below:

¶40

“6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based

¶41

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶42

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶43

¶44

on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

¶45

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”

¶46

xxx

¶47

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not

¶48

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶49

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶50

¶51

illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

¶52

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”

¶53

Further, the same question came up for consideration in Dharam Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India went a step ahead even with regard to the objection being taken by the employer qua the qualification possessed by the employee as well as the non-availability of

¶54

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶55

¶56

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶57

the regular post and observed ‘State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.

¶58

The direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such background makes it clear that such objections taken have been overruled so as to give direction to the employer that an employee who has continued to serve for more than 10 years, is entitled for regularization. Relevant paragraphs No. 19 and 20 of the judgment in Dharam Singh and others’ case (supra) are as under :-

¶59

“19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

¶60

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments

¶61

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶62

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶63

¶64

in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.

¶65

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and

¶66

(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

¶67

iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.

¶68

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.

¶69

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶70

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶71

¶72

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.

¶73

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

¶74

KANCHAN 2026.07.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶75

CM-3774-LPA-2026; CM-3773-LPA-2026; CM-3775-LPA-2026 and CM-3776-LPA-2026 in/and LPA-1546-2026

¶76

¶77

Even otherwise, it may be noticed that once, an employee has worked for more than one and half decade, it becomes the duty of the employer to create regular post rather than to deny a benefit admissible to an employee on the said account. Hence, the said act of not creating regular post but still continuing to take work from such an employee for a period of 15 years is not only arbitrary and illegal but shows that the employer though wants the work to be executed by the employee but does not want the benefit of regularization to be extended to such employee. This kind of attitude has already been depreciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through numerous landmark judgments.

¶78

From the record, even the argument that there is no sanction post is not made out. It may be noticed that there is no document placed on record to show that there does not exist any regular post for the regularization.

¶79

No other argument is raised.

¶80

Keeping in view the above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2026 is upheld to the extent that the appellant should consider the claim of the respondents for regularization in terms of settled principle of law noticed within a period of eight weeks from today and in case, there is nothing objectionable against such employees qua their work and conduct, appropriate order for regularization be passed.

¶81