***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL) –

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners on the posts of Accounts Clerks in the light of the Policy dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) and Notification dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-6) without insisting on the condition of continuous/continued service of 10 years as on 10.04.2006 and in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar and others vs Union of India and others and Shripal and others vs Nagar Nigam Gaziabad and others, as well as the judgment passed in Jaggo vs Union of India and others, 2024 SCC (Online) SC 3826 and in the light of the judgment dated 13.03.2024 passed in CWP-2158-2020, titled as Ashish Sharma and others vs State of Haryana and others and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CWP-31304-2025, titled as Joginder vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 31.12.2025, along with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis as Accounts Clerks in the Haryana Women Development Corporation in the year 2014. The State of Haryana has issued a regularization policy on 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-5) for Group-C and Group-D employees, who have completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. The policy was amended from time to time to condone breaks in service upto 90 days in a year if not attributable to the employee. The Government of Haryana has issued another policy on 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-7) stating contractual employees with 03 years of service were entitled to regularization, however, the said policy was set-aside by this Court in CWP-17206-2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have rendered satisfactory and unblemished service while discharging their duties. He further contends that the perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The petitioners are neither engaged as a part-time workers nor as a casual labourers and there has been no complaint or adverse remarks against the petitioners. The petitioners’ continuous engagement on contract basis is violative of the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, as well as the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-35744-2025 titled as Anoop Singh vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.12.2025 which recognizes the right of long-serving contractual employees to be considered for regularization, however, the respondents have failed to take any decision in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-10) seeking regularization of their services, which is still pending consideration and has not been decided by the respondents.

3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, could not controvert the factual position that the petitioners have rendered more than 11 years of continuous service with the respondent/Corporation and no adverse remarks or disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. It has also not been disputed that the petitioners are discharging duties of a perennial and regular nature, which are otherwise being performed by regularly appointed Account Clerks.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant time period. Such an approach would be violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further still, temporary employees cannot be forced to bear the brunt of lack of financial resources when the State had no qualms about continuously taking advantage of the services rendered with regard to integral and recurring work of the concerned department. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo’s case (supra), Vinod Kumar’s case (supra) and Shripal’s case (supra).

6. Recently, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh’s case (supra), speaking through Justice Vikram Nath has held as follows:

“11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case….

** ** **

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.

** ** **

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 offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where 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 “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. The State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non-availability of sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision in Umadevi’s case (supra) as talisman to deny well deserved regularisation on account of their perennial nature of long periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Sarwan Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate bench in Amrish Sharma and others vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-19238-2013 decided on 26.02.2024.

8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present petition is disposed of. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. If no order of regularization is passed within a period of six weeks from today, both the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized. The petitioners shall be entitled to counting of past service and other benefits as per judgments 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.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********