Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
306+143+304+305+144 CWP-10071-2022
Date of Decision: 22.01.2025
Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Sr. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
No.
2. CWP-11263-2017 Rajinder Singh State of Haryana and
others
3. CWP-12121-2017 Randhir Singh and State of Haryana and
another others
4. CWP-12342-2017 Des Raj and others State of Haryana and
others
5. CWP-13120-2018 Manoj Kumar State of Haryana and
others
6. CWP-21091-2016 Pooja Dua Haryana State
Agriculture Marketing
Board and another
7. CWP-21202-2017 Karam Chand and State of Haryana and
others others
8. CWP-24829-2018 Ashok Kumar and State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others
9. CWP-5881-2017 Aas Mohammad State of Haryana and
and others others
10. CWP-5882-2017 Inder Pal Singh State of Haryana and
(O&M) and others others
11. CWP-6516-2017 Babu Ram Municipal Corporation,
Panipat
12. CWP-7395-2018 Bharat Lal State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
13. CWP-7523-2017 Sunita Devi State of Haryana and
others
14. CWP-8377-2017 Naresh Kumar Housing Board, Haryana
(O&M) and others and another
15. CWP-9112-2017 Ram Dinesh State of Haryana and
others
16. CWP-9639-2017 Daya Ram and State of Haryana and
others others
17. CWP-15744-2017 Roopnath Haryana State
Agricultural Marketing
Board and another
18. CWP-15891-2017 Ved Parkash State of Haryana and
others
19. CWP-15148-2017 Kanta State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
1 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -2-
20. CWP-15149-2017 Rameshwar State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
21. CWP-18883-2017 Ram Lal State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
22. CWP-18884-2017 Vinod Kumar State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
23. CWP-18885-2017 Ramesh State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
24. CWP-9265-2018 Dharambir State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
25. CWP-20811-2017 Balbir Sharma State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
26. CWP-23672-2017 Raghubir State of Haryana and
others
27. CWP-19801-2018 Bhani Ram State of Haryana and
others
28. CWP-21650-2017 Satyawan State of Haryana and
others
29. CWP-23687-2017 Shyam Singh and Municipal Corporation,
others Faridabad and others
30. CWP-23878-2017 Kuldip Singh State of Haryana and
others
31. CWP-24286-2017 Gulab Singh and State of Haryana and
others others
32. CWP-27437-2017 Mahender Singh State of Haryana and
and others others
33. CWP-895-2023 Babu Ram Haryana Vidyut
Parsaran Nigam Limited
and others
34. CWP-5204-2023 Chand State of Haryana and
others
35. CWP-22316-2021 Umed Singh State of Haryana and
others
36. CWP-19909-2022 Ram Phal and State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others
37. CWP-2314-2023 Birbal and others State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
38. CWP-5271-2019 Kamla Devi Dakshin Haryana Bijli
(O&M) Vitran Nigam, Hisar
39. CWP-5283-2019 Ranjit Haryana Vidyut
(O&M) Prasaran Nigam Limited
40. CWP-12663-2012 Jasbir Kaur State of Haryana and
others
41. CWP-3773-2017 Babu Lal State of Haryana and
others
42. CWP-3803-2017 Satyabir State of Haryana and
others
43. CWP-5501-2017 Mahabir Singh State of Haryana and
(O&M) another
44. CWP-13064-2017 Kaptan Singh Uttar Haryana Bijli
(O&M) Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
2 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -3-
45. CWP-15147-2017 Kishan Lal State of Haryana and
others
46. CWP-2585-2019 Bhajna State of Haryana and
others
47. CWP-9111-2019 Naresh Kumar Haryana State Industrial
and Infrastructure
Development
Corporation Limited and
another
48. CWP-9837-2020 Attar Singh and State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others
49. CWP-20465-2020 Poolwati Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam and others
50. CWP-10-2021 Jagat Ram and Shri Mata Mansa Devi
another Shrine Board, Panchkula
51. CWP-6273-2021 Raju Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
52. CWP-8252-2021 Ramesh and others State of Haryana and
another
53. CWP-19621-2022 Rajesh State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
54. CWP-11016-2022 Anil Kumar Haryana Electronics
Development
Corporation
55. CWP-16967-2022 Satpal Dakshin Haryana Vijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
56. CWP-16409-2021 Mohan Lal Managing Director,
Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and another
57. CWP-19844-2022 Pawan Singh and Uttar Haryana Bijli
others Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
58. CWP-26881-2022 Bhola Singh Managing Director and
others
59. CWP-5519-2020 Karambir and State of Haryana and
others others
60. CWP-4381-2022 Shyam Pal and State of Haryana and
others others
61. CWP-19175-2023 Satish Kumar and State of Haryana and
others others
62. CWP-25836-2022 Kali Charan and State of Haryana and
others others
63. CWP-20531-2023 Sita State of Haryana and
others
64. CWP-14685-2018 Krishna Devi and Dakshin Haryana Bijli
others Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
65. CWP-30784-2018 Keshar Singh State of Haryana and
others
3 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -4-
66. CWP-22800-2016 Ram Phal State of Haryana and
another
67. CWP-7025-2022 Subhash Chand State of Haryana and
others
68. CWP-32825-2019 Sunita Devi State of Haryana and
others
69. CWP-19218-2020 Birbhan Managing Director and
others
70. CWP-9191-2021 Ram Rati Managing Director and
others
71. CWP-28666-2019 Mahender Singh State of Haryana and
(O&M) and others others
72. CWP-3129-2020 Sandeep Sharma Housing Board Haryana
and another
73. CWP-19664-2020 Om Parkash State of Haryana and
(O&M) Sharma others
74. CWP-8504-2024 Jaswant Singh State of Haryana and
others
75. CWP-5570-2020 Surender Singh Haryana Vidyut
and others Parsaran Nigam Limited
and others
76. CWP-2468-2022 Subhash Chand Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
77. CWP-3151-2018 Jaimal and others State of Haryana and
others
78. CWP-3770-2018 Ram Lal Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
79. CWP-6202-2018 Yogesh Kumar State of Haryana and
and others others
80. CWP-28286-2018 Pankaj Kumar State of Haryana and
others
81. CWP-3870-2020 Subhash Chander State of Haryana and
others
82. CWP-30127-2018 Mahinder Singh Municipal Corporation,
and others Faridabad and others
83. CWP-37917-2018 Kishan Wati Haryana Urban
Development Authority
(HUDA) and another
84. CWP-4373-2019 Surinder Kumar Uttar Haryana Bijli
and others Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
85. CWP-5934-2019 Ripudaman State of Haryana and
others
86. CWP-22678-2019 Sunil Chaudhary Haryana Power
Generation Corporation
Limited and others
87. CWP-6308-2021 Kashmiri Lal Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
4 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -5-
88. CWP-6376-2021 Meena Devi Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
89. CWP-6385-2021 Vijay Kumar Uttar Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
90. CWP-10474-2020 Sonu and others State of Haryana and
others
91. CWP-20337-2020 Krishna Devi State of Haryana and
others
92. CWP-8940-2021 Jaipal State of Haryana and
others
93. CWP-2255-2022 Harnam Singh State of Haryana and
others
94. CWP-697-2023 Balraj and others State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
95. CWP-27340-2022 Radhika Devi Haryana Vidyut
Parsaran Nigam Limited
and others
96. CWP-28322-2022 Sunil Kumar and State of Haryana and
others others
97. CWP-6019-2023 Surender Kumar State of Haryana and
others
98. CWP-25639-2022 Sukhdev Singh Haryana Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited
and others
99. CWP-26299-2022 Jugal Kishore Haryana Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited
and others
100. CWP-10940-2023 Braham Singh and Dakshin Haryana Bijli
(O&M) another Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
101. CWP-32084-2018 Sultan Singh State of Haryana and
others
102. CWP-17346-2023 Ravinder Kumar State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
103. CWP-10045-2019 Chhajju Ram State of Haryana and
others
104. CWP-10891-2016 Pawan Kumar Haryana State Industrial
and Infrastructure
Development
Corporation Limited and
another
105. CWP-18480-2023 Mahesh Kumar Haryana Seeds
and another Development
Corporation Limited
106. CWP-1505-2023 Krishan Lal and State of Haryana and
others others
107. CWP-9628-2018 Punit Kumar State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
5 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -6-
108. CWP-9694-2014 Mohan Singh Chief Executive Officer,
Mewat Development
Agency and another
109. CWP-21277-2017 Rajpal and others Dakshin Haryana Bijli
(O&M) Vitran Nigam and others
110. CWP-24617-2022 Bharat Singh and State of Haryana and
others others
111. CWP-26421-2017 Usha Rani and State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others
112. CWP-20459-2023 Kirshan Kumar State of Haryana and
and others others
113. CWP-29692-2017 Rampal State of Haryana and
others
114. CWP-25466-2018 Ram Pal Singh Municipal Corporation,
(O&M) Faridabad
115. CWP-5414-2022 Baljeet State of Haryana and
others
116. CWP-19094-2022 Parvinder Kumar State of Haryana and
and another others
117. CWP-19560-2022 Anto Devi State of Haryana and
others
118. CWP-19586-2022 Radha Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
119. CWP-20374-2022 Joginder State of Haryana and
others
120. CWP-29868-2018 Ravinder Kumar State of Haryana and
others
121. CWP-19151-2019 Maya Devi Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
122. CWP-200-2020 Karam Chand Housing Board, Haryana
and another
123. CWP-16075-2021 Ram Niwas Haryana Shehri Vikas
(O&M) Pradhikaran and others
124. CWP-28538-2022 Raj Bala State of Haryana and
(O&M) others
125. CWP-681-2017 Satbir and others State of Haryana and
others
126. CWP-15128-2018 Inder Singh and State of Haryana and
others others
127. CWP-24151-2019 Sushil Kumar and Dakshin Haryana Bijli
(O&M) others Vitran Nigam Limited
and another
128. CWP-14345-2019 Azad Singh Haryana Urban
Development Authority
and others
129. CWP-15300-2018 Hari Singh and Vice Chancellor,
others Kurukshetra University
and others
6 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -7-
130. CWP-25017-2023 Savitri @ Savitri Haryana Vidyut
Devi and another Parsaran Nigam Limited
and others
131. CWP-8397-2023 Bishan Singh and Dakshin Haryana Bijli
others Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
132. CWP-4139-2013 Ram Kishore and State of Haryana and
others others
133. CWP-5883-2017 Radha Krishan State of Haryana and
(O&M) and others others
134. CWP-13884-2024 Ram Niwas State of Haryana and
others
135. CWP-7506-2024 Sombir Singh Uttar Haryana Bijli
(O&M) Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
136. CWP-13944-2018 Dayanand Singh State of Haryana and
others
137. CWP-18982-2023 Om Singh and Haryana Seeds
another Development
Corporation Limited
138. CWP-9523-2024 Surender Kumar State of Haryana and
others
139. CWP-29641-2018 Dinesh Kumar and State of Haryana and
others others
140. CWP-30018-2018 Naval Singh and State of Haryana and
others others
141. CWP-27840-2018 Manjit State of Haryana and
others
142. CWP-14379-2019 Azad Singh and Haryana Urban
others Development Authority
and others
143. CWP-20486-2020 Rajender and Dakshin Haryana Bijli
others Vitran Nigam Limited
and others
144. CWP-5584-2023 Urmila State of Haryana and
others
145. CWP-1312-1997 Balwant Singh State of Haryana
146. CWP-34399-2019 Naresh Kumar State of Haryana and
and others others
147. CWP-30961-2018 Vinod Kumar & State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others
148. CWP-5879-2017 Trilok Chand and State of Haryana and
(O&M) others others
149. CWP-9264-2018 Saroj State of Haryana and
others
150. CWP-37410-2019 Saroj @ Lali Haryana Sahri Vikas
(O&M) Pradhikaran and others
151. CWP-32455-2024 Anil Kumar State of Haryana and
others
7 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -8-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-5881 of 2017, CWP-5882 of 2017,
CWP-5883 of 2017, CWP-8377 of 2017, CWP-23687 of 2017,
CWP-30127 of 2018, CWP-2255 of 2022, CWP-9111 of 2019,
CWP-200 of 2020 and CWP-5879 of 2017.
Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP No.10474 of 2020, CWP No.19621 of 2022, CWP
No.28538 of 2022, CWP No.19094 of 2022 & CWP No.20374 of
2022.
Mr. Anuj Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-10071 of 2022.
Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-10891-2016.
Mr. D.S. Adlakha, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-2585-2019 &
CWP-13884-2024.
Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.16967 of 2022,
CWP No.16409 of 2020, CWP No.2468 of 2022,
CWP-19586-2022, CWP-9112-2017 &
CWP No.26299 of 2022.
Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-20337-2020
Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-11016 of 2022.
Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWPs-4381 of 2022 and 5519 of 2020.
Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWPs-9628 of 2018 and 8397 of 2023.
Mr. Devender Arya, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.5283 of 2019,
CWP-5271-2019 & CWP-20486-2020.
Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate for
the petitioners in CWP Nos.6308, 6376, 6273 of 2021 and
for petitioner Nos. 1 to 8 in CWP-20486 of 2020.
Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ramesh Chand, Advocate for
Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.3870 of 2020 and
CWP No.8940 of 2021.
8 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -9-
Mr. Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate and
Mr. Ram Bhati, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.13944 of 2018.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.18480 of 2023 &
CWP No.18982 of 2023.
Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWPs-20811 of 2017 and 25639 of 2022.
Mr. Neeraj Gaur, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-30961 of 2018.
Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-24286-2017,
CWP Nos.29868, 15128 of 2018 & CWP-10 of 2021.
Mr. Eeshan Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Pawan Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saksham Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr. Raminder Singh Joon, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-8504-2024.
Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-13064-2017 & CWP-15744-2017.
Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate with
Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-28666-2019.
Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate for
Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP No.16075 of 2021.
Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-19909-2022.
Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate with
Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-30018 of 2018, CWP-3773-2017,
CWP-3803-2017, CWP-32455-2024 CWP-9639-2017, CWP-
34399-2019 and CWP-22316 of 2021.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Bhagal, Advocate for
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP
No.27437 of 2017.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner No.16409 of 2019 & CWP No.8252 of 2019.
Mr. Surender Saini, Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-23878-2017.
Mr. Jayant Puneet Bamal, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-30127 of 2018.
9 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -10-
Mr. Jasbir Mor, Advocate with
Mr. Surender Mor, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-5570 of 2020.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate and
Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-17346-2023.
Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-1312 of 1997 and CWP-25836 of 2022.
Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-7523-2017.
Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWPs-19844 of 2022 and 7506 of 2024.
Mr. R.S. Panghal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWPs-27340 of 2022 & 6385 of 2021.
Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-11263 of
2017, CWP-3151 of 2018, CWP-12121 of 2017, CWP-12342 of
2017, CWP-9694-2014, CWP-15300-2018, CWP-13120 of 2018
and CWP-24829 of 2018.
Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWPs-15148 of 2017, 15149 of 2017, 9265
of 2018, 18883 of 2017, 18885 of 2017, 6516 of 2017, 9264 of
2018, 22800 of 2016 and 25466 of 2018.
Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-15147 of 2017, CWP-15891 of 2017
and CWP-18884 of 2017.
Ms. Seenu Ravesh, Advocate for
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-29692-2017.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate and
Mr. N.C. Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-4373-2019, CWP-10045-2019,
CWP-24151-2019, CWP-697-2023, CWP-28322-2022, CWP-
6019-2023, CWP-5204-2023, CWP-2314-2023, CWP-21277-
2017, CWP-24617-2022, CWP-26421-2017, CWP-20459-2023,
& CWP-9523-2024.
Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWPs-14685 of 2018, 19151 of 2019,
29641-2018, 25017-2023 and 10940 of 2023.
Mr. Nitin Goswami, Advocate for
Mr. S.K. Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWPs-5584 of 2023 and
CWP-32825 of 2019 and
for the respondent in CWP-13944 of 2018.
Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate,
Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Monu Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-37410-2019.
10 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -11-
Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-37917-2018.
Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-28286-2018.
Mr. Mangesh Goel, Advocate and
Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate for the petitioner on CWP-1505-2023.
Ms. Mansi, Advocate for
Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-30784-2018.
Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-32084-2018.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-21202-2017.
Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-21650-2017.
Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-5414-2022 & CWP-19664-2020.
Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Prajjwal Jaiswal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-7395-2018.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP No.19175 of 2023
for the respondent in CWP No.15744 of 2017.
Mr. P.L. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-14379-2019 & CWP-14345-2019.
Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-19218 of 2020, CWP-19801-2018,
CWP-26881-2022, CWP-23672-2017 and CWP-9191 of 2022.
Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate,
Mr. Mayank Vashisth, Advocate
Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate,
Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate,
Mr. Kunal Soni, Advocate,
Ms. Harita Dhanda, Advocate
Mr. Vasu Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 and 4-HVPNL, DHBVN, UHBVN,
MC (Faridabad).
with
Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate
for respondent No.3 & 4 in CWP-5414 of 2022
for the respondents in CWP-22678-2019
for respondent No.2 in CWP-8252-2021
for respondent No.3 in CWP-5883-2017
for respondent No.2 in CWP-19560-2022
for respondent No.2 in CWP-20374-2022
for respondent No.2 in CWP-19094-2022
11 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -12-
for respondent No.3 in CWP-5882-2017
for the respondents in CWP-10940-2023
for respondents No.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in CWP-24617-2022
for the respondents in CWP-21277-2017
for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-10071-2022
for respondent No.3 in CWP-681-2017
for respondent No.3 in CWP-5584-2023
for respondent No.30018-2018
for respondent No.3 in CWP-5881-2017
with
Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP-13884-2024
for respondents No.2 to 5 in CWP-2314-2023
for respondent in CWP-8397-2023
with
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-6202 of 2018
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-16075-2021
for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-28666-2019.
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in CWP-26881-2022.
with
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate
for the respondent-MCF in CWPs-11263 of 2017, 12121 of 2017,
12342 of 2017, 13120 of 2018, 21202 of 2017, 24829 of 2018,
3773 of 2017, 3803 of 2017, 7395 of 2018, 25466 of 2018 13944
of 2018 and 3151 of 2018.
with
Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate and
Ms. Mansi, Advocate for the respondents in CWPs- 4373 of 2019,
6308 of 2021, 26299 of 2017, 19586 of 2022, 19218 of 2020 and
9191 of 2021.
for respondent No.2 in CWP- 22800 of 2016, CWP-10474 of 2020,
CWP-19560 of 2022 & CWP-19621 of 2022.
for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-26292 of 2022.
for respondent No.3 in CWP-9628 of 2018
for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-9837 of 2020,
for respondent No.3 in CWP-6202 of 2018
for respondent No.3 in CWP-28286 of 2018.
with
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate and
Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate
for the respondent-UHBVN in CWP-7506-2024,
for the respondent-MC Tohana-CWP-18487.
for the respondent-HSAMB- CWP-21091-2016.
for the respondent-HVPNL in CWP-25017-2023
for the respondent-MC Hisar in CWP-27437-2017
for the respondent-DHBVNL in CWP-20459-2023,
CWP-3770-2018 & CWP-5271-2019.
for the respondent-HEDCCTD in CWP-11016-2022.
for the respondent-Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board-CWP-10-2021.
Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate General Haryana with
Ms. Shruti Goyal, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
Ms. Dimple Jain, DAG, Haryana and
Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana
12 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -13-
Ms. Vasundhra Asija Bhandari, Advocate
for the respondent in CWP No.32084 of 2018 and
CWP No.6516 of 2017.
Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate
for respondent No.2-MC-Siwan in CWP-20374-2022
for the respondent-Housing Board in CWP-8377-2017
for the respondent-Seed Corporation in CWP-18480-2023
for the respondent-DHBVN in CWP-20465-2020.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in CWP-5570-2020.
Mr. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the respondents in CWP-30127-2018.
Mr. Nihal S. Chaudhary, Advocate
for the respondent in CWP-30961-2018 & CWP-15148-2018.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Advocate
for the respondent in CWPs-29641 of 2018 and 5934 of 2019.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Maurya, Advocate for
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Advocate
for the respondent-HSIDC in CWP-10891-2016.
Mr. Ritik Mohindroo Advocate for
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 in CWP-19664 of 2020.
Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in CWP-20337 of 2020.
Mr. Bikram Choudhary, Advocate
for respondent No.4 in CWP-10045-2019.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate and
Mr. Vicky Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in CWP-24286-2017.
for respondents No.1 to 4 in CWP-5283-2019.
for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-9111-2019.
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-14685-2018.
for respondents No.2 to 5 in CWP-32825-2019.
for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP-200-2020.
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-14345-2019.
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-14379-2019.
for respondent No.1 in CWP-3129-2020.
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in CWP-20811 of 2017.
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate with
Mr. Devyansh, Advocate,
Mr. Saksham Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Yogit Mehta, Advocate
for respondent No.4 in CWP-8940-2011 & CWP-3870-2020
for respondent No. 2 in CWP-20374 of 2022.
Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate
for the respondent CWP No.6376 of 2021.
13 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -14-
Mr. Karanveer Ahuja, Advocate with
Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate
for the respondent in CWP-23878-2017 & CWP-5501-2017.
Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate
for respondent No.5 in CWP-30784-2018.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Advocate for the respondent
Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate
for the respondents in CWP-15300 of 2018.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3 in CWP-37410-2019 and
for respondent No.3 in CWP No.4139 of 2013.
Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate with
Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate,
Mr. Hardeep Singh Poonia and
Mr. Ojasvi Taak, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 & 4 in, CWP No.15891 of 2017, CWP
No.18883 of 2017, CWP No.18884 of 2017, CWP No.18885 of
2017, CWP No.15148 of 2018, CWP No.15149 of 2018, CWP
No.9264 of 2018, CWP No.9265 of 2018 & CWP No.29868 of
2018.
Ms. Sehej Sandhawalia, Advocate
for the respondent in CWP-16967-2022.
***
1. By this common order, a bunch of writ petitions is disposed of
as common issues are involved.
Brief Facts: –
2. The petitioners through instant petitions under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to regularize
them and that too from retrospective date. They are employees of different
Organizations of State of Haryana like Municipal Committee, Public Sector
Companies which are engaged in the generation or distribution of power.
They were engaged as part time or contractual or adhoc workers. They
worked or are working for more than two decades. There are few petitioners
who had worked or are working for more than three decades. Few petitioners
are claiming that they should be regularized as per policy of 1996 and few
are claiming as per policy of 2011. All others are claiming regularization as
per policy of 2003.
14 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -15-
3. The State Government in 1996 framed policy of regularization
of adhoc, contractual and part time employees. The said policy was followed
by policy of 2003. The majority of petitioners are claiming regularization as
per policy of 2003, thus, policy of 2003 is reproduced as below:
“Haryana Government
General Administration Department
(General Services I)
Notification
The 1st October, 2003
No.G.S.R.24/Const./Art.309/2003.- In exercise of the
powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India read with the proviso to clause 6 of
Haryana Government General Administration Department
(General Services), Notification No.523-3GS-70/2068, dated
the 28th January, 1970, and all other powers enabling him in
this behalf, the Governor of Haryana hereby specifies such
Group-C posts, as have been held for a minimum period of
three years on the 30th September, 2003 by Group-C
employees on adhoc/ contract or daily wage basis, to be taken
out of the purview of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
The services of such adhoc/contract/daily wage employees
shall be regularised if they fulfill the following conditions,
namely:-
1. Adhoc Employees/Contract Employees:
(i) that only such Adhoc/Contract employees who
have completed three years service on 30th
September, 2003 and were in service on that
date should be made regular. If the break in
service of an adhoc/contractually employed
person has been caused for no fault attributable
to him, such break period should be condoned
unless it is of an extraordinary longer period
i.e. not more than six months. However, if the
break in service has been caused due to fault of
the employee like abandonment of employment,
the Government may not condone the same if15 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -16-
the period of such break is more than a period
of 30 days;
(ii) that the employees possessed/possess the
prescribed qualification for the post(s) held in
Adhoc basis/Contract basis;
(iii) that the work and conduct of such employees
shall be of overall good category and no
disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings
are pending against them; and
(iv) that the employees shall be regularised, who
were originally appointed against the vacant
posts:
(v) that only those contract employees shall be
regularised who are appointed against
sanctioned posts on regular pay scale or on
consolidated salary.
However, the employees who have promoted on adhoc
basis pending recruitment by Haryana Staff Selection
Commission will not be covered under this decision.
2. Daily Wage Employees (Group C): –
That only such daily wage employees who have
completed three years service on Group-C posts on 30th
September, 2003 and were in service on 30th September,
2003 shall be regularised against their respective Group-C
posts, provided they fulfill the requisite qualifications and
were originally appointed against vacant posts. Provided
further, that they have worked for a minimum period of 240
days in each year and if the break in service of a daily wage
employee has been caused for no fault attributable to him,
such break period should be condoned unless it is of an
extraordinary longer period. However, if the break in service
has been caused due to fault of the employee like
abandonment of employment, the Government may not
condone the same if the period of such break is more than a
period of 30 days.
3. Daily-Wage Employees (Group D) :-
16 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -17-
Only such daily wage employees who have completed
three years services on Group D post(s) on 30th September,
2003 and were in service on 30th September, 2003 shall be
regularised against their respective Group-D posts provided
they fulfill the requisite qualification and were originally
appointed against vacant posts. Provided further that they
have worked for a minimum period of 240 days in each year
and if the break in service of a daily wage employee(s) has
been caused for no fault attributable to him, such break
period should be condoned unless it is of an extraordinary
longer period. However, if the break in service has been
caused due to fault of the employee like abandonment of
employment, the Government may not condone the same if the
period of such break is more than a period of 30 days.”
4. The State Government vide notification dated 13.04.2007, in
view of judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v.
Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 decided to withdraw its policies dated
17.06.1997, 05.11.1999, 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004. The notification dated
13.04.2007 is reproduced as below:
“HARYANA GOVERNMENT
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
(GENERAL SERVICES-1)
Notification
The 13th April, 2007No. G. S. R. 13/Const./Art. 309/2007.-In exercise of the
powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the
Constitution of India read with the proviso to clause (6) of
Haryana Government, General Administration Department
(General Services), notification No. 523-3GS-70/2068, dated
the 28th January, 1970, the Governor of Haryana hereby
rescinds the following notifications issued in relation to
regularization of services of adhoc/daily-wage/contract/part-
time workers etc. forthwith :-
17 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -18-
1. No. G. S. R. 41/Const./Art. 309/97, dated the 17th
June, 1997;
2. No. G. S. R. 101/Const./Art. 309/99, dated the 5th
November, 1999;
3. No. G. S. R. 24/Const./Art. 309/2003, dated the 1st
October, 2003; and
4. No. G. S. R. 5/Const./Art. 309/2004, dated the 10th
February, 2004.
This notification shall not adversely affect the cases
where regularization have already been made but are not
sub-judice.
PREM PRASHANT,
Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana.”
5. The Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana vide
communication dated 25.04.2007 intimated to different departments that in
view of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), Government has
decided to withdraw all the policies of regularization of adhoc/daily
wagers/contractual workers.
6. The State Government w.e.f. 29.07.2011 in terms of judgment
of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra) introduced regularization policy.
The said policy is reproduced as below: –
“Haryana Government
General Administration Department
(General Services-I)
Notification
The 29th July, 2011No.G.S.R. 9/Const./Art. 309/2011.– In exercise of the
powers conferred by the proviso to article 209 of the
Constitution of India read with the proviso to clause 6 of
Haryana Government, General Administration Department
(General Services), notification No. 523-3GS-70/2068, dated
the 28th January, 1970, the Governor of Haryana hereby18 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -19-
specifies such Group C posts, as have been held for a
minimum period of ten years as on 10-4-2006, by Group C
employees/workers on adhoc/contract/work-charged/daily
wages and part-time basis to be taken out of the purview of
the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
The services of such Group C and Group D
employees/workers appointed/ engaged on adhoc/contract/
work-charged/daily-wages and part-time basis shall be
regularized if they fulfil the following conditions, namely:–
(i) That the employee/worker should have continued to
work for not less than ten years as on 10-4-2006 and is
still in service but not under cover of the orders of the
Courts or Tribunals, against duly sanctioned vacant
posts. The period of continuous break in such service
should not be more than one month in a calendar year.
(ii) That the employee/worker possessed the minimum
prescribed qualifications for the post on the date of
appointment/engagement .
(iii) That the concerned employee should have been
appointed only after either his name has been
sponsored by the Employment Exchange or has been
appointed/engaged on the basis of recommendations
made by the Departmental Selection Committee by
inviting applications through advertisement against
duly sanctioned vacant post.
(iv) That the work and conduct of such employee should
have been throughout satisfactory and no disciplinary
or criminal proceedings should be pending against
him.
(v) That the employee should be regularized against a
sanctioned vacant post of relevant category.
(vi) A medical fitness certificate and documentary proof of
Date of Birth as per the instructions shall be obtained
from the employee concerned.
19 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -20-
(vii) His antecedents should be got verified by the police as
per the Government instructions if it was not done
earlier.
(viii) No relaxation of the criteria as laid down above shall
be allowed.
2. A part time employee fulfilling conditions mentioned
above shall be regularized against a sanctioned vacant
fulltime post of the same category.
3. Such posts are being hereby taken out of the purview
of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.
4. As a result of regularization of Group C adhoc/
contract/work-charged/daily-wages/part-time employees/
workers, the number of available vacancies in the
departments may undergo a change and affect the
requisitions already sent to Haryana Staff Selection
Commission. Therefore, where the vacancies have not yet
been advertised, the departments may after calculating at
their own level decide now many vacancies are to be
withdrawn from the requisition sent to the recruiting agency
and send intimation of withdrawal of vacancies to the
respective recruiting agency.
5. However, the regularly recruited employees, who have
been promoted on adhoc basis on the direct recruitment posts
pending recruitment by Haryana Staff Selection Commission,
meaning hereby those employees who have been promoted
against the vacancy of such posts, the recruitment of which is
within the purview of Haryana Staff Selection Commission,
shall not be covered under this policy.
6. The date of regularization shall be deemed to be the
date of issuance of this notification. The seniority of the
employees shall be fixed from the date the their regularization
and they shall be placed below in the seniority to the
employees last appointed on the regular basis before the
issuance of this notification. However, the inter-se-seniority
of such adhoc/contract/work charged/ daily-wages and part-
time employees so regularized shall be determined in
accordance with date of their joining the post on
20 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -21-
adhoc/contract/work charged/ daily wages and part-time
basis. If the date of joining the post on adhoc/ contract/work
charged/daily wages and part-time basis is the same, then an
employee who is older in age shall rank senior to an
employee younger is age.
7. The benefit of the seniority shall be given to such
employees/worker from the date of their regularization.
Therefore, such employees shall be entitled to the incentives
introduced under the Incentive Schemes like ACP scheme
(wherein regular satisfactory service is required) from the
date of their regularization. The pay of such employees shall
be fixed in accordance with provisions of the service rules.
Since new pension scheme has been introduced by the State
Government w.e.f. 1-1-2006, such employees shall be covered
under the provisions of New Pension Scheme.
8. Since this policy is a one time measure on
humanitarian ground, therefore, no person shall be entitled to
claim it as a matter of right, if found unsuitable due to non
fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in this notification.
9. In future, no illegal/irregular appointment/
employment on adhoc/ daily wages/work-charged and part
time shall be made against sanctioned posts.
10. Such Group C and D employees/workers, who are not
covered under this regularization policy but are still in
service, may be given age relaxation as a one time measure, if
they complete for regular appointment.”
7. The State Government, for the reasons best known to it, vide
notification dated 18.06.2014 decided to amend notification dated
13.04.2007 whereby earlier policies were withdrawn. By way of notification
dated 18.06.2014, a proviso came to be inserted at the end of notification
dated 13.04.2007. As per said proviso, all the adhoc/contract/daily
wage/work charge employees shall be regularized w.e.f. the date they were
eligible for regularization but could not be regularized due to administrative
21 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -22-
reasons though were otherwise eligible. The notification dated 18.06.2014 is
reproduced as below:
“Notification
The 18th June, 2014No. 6/7/2014-1G.S.I.-In exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India read with the proviso to clause 6 of the Haryana
Government, General Administration Department (General
Services), the Governor of Haryana hereby makes the
following amendment in Haryana Government, General
Administration Department (General Services-I), Notification
No. G.S.R. 13/Const./Art. 309/2007, dated 13th April, 2007,
namely:-
AMENDMENT
In the Haryana Government, General Administration
Department (General Services-1), Notification No. G.S.R.
13/Const./Art. 309/2007, dated 13th April, 2007 the following
proviso shall be added at the end, namely:-
“Provided that the left over Group “C” and “D” employees
working on adhoc/contract/daily wages/work-charged basis,
who could not be regularized under the regularization policy
issued vide notifications mentioned at serial No. 1 to 4 above
due to administrative reasons but were otherwise eligible,
shall be regularized with effect from the date(s) they were
eligible for regularization.”.
S.C. CHOUDHARY,
Chief Secretary to Government Haryana”
Argument of petitioners:-
8. A battery of lawyers led by Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate,
vehemently pleaded that petitioners are entitled to be regularized as per
notification dated 18.06.2014, however, respondent without any rhyme or
reason has withheld their claim. Many employees have attained the age of
22 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -23-
superannuation and many are on the verge of superannuation. The
notification dated 18.06.2014 till date has not been withdrawn, thus,
respondent is bound by said notification. There is no reason to deny them
benefit of regularization. Different Benches of this Court have already
upheld claim of similarly situated employees. The petitioners who have been
regularized in 2014 are entitled to be regularized as per 2003 policy. Denial
of regularization as per policy of 2003 would amount to violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Few employees are entitled to be
regularized as per 1996 policy. There are few petitioners who have been
reinstated by the Labour Court. They have been granted continuity of
service, thus, they deserve to be considered for permanent post as per 2003
policy.
Argument of respondents: –
9. Learned Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. B.R. Mahajan,
Senior Advocate pleaded that in view of judgment of Supreme Court in
State of Haryana and others v. Khajjan Singh and others, SLP No.9965-
9974 of 2016, question of law is still open. This Court should examine claim
of petitioners without being influenced by judgments of this Court. The
policy of 1996 was never withdrawn, thus, claim as per policy of 1996 is a
deadwood. It cannot be rekindled. The petitioners who were issued
appointment letter in 2014 were appointed as regular employees. They have
not challenged their appointment letters. They are getting pay and
allowances as per appointment letter. They cannot be extended benefit of
2003 policy.
10. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record
with their able assistance.
23 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -24-
Judicial precedents: -
11. Different High Courts as well as Supreme Court prior to 2006
in many cases directed States/Union of India to regularize part time/work
charged/adhoc/contractual/daily wage employees. The foundation of all the
judgments was length of service. In 2006, a Constitution Bench in Uma Devi
(supra), adverted to the question of regularization of temporary/part
time/adhoc/daily wage employees. The Apex Court deprecated practice of
employing temporary/part time or contractual employees though it held that
in exigency, State can make appointment on contract basis. The Court held
that regularization of contractual or part time employees would amount to
legalization of back door entrants. The regularization of part time employees
is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 309 of Constitution of India. The employees
who are working on daily wage cannot claim discrimination on the ground
that they have been paid lesser than regularly recruited employees. The High
Court should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or
continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of
the constitutional scheme. High Court is not justified in issuing interim
orders in such cases. There is no fundamental or vested right in those who
have been employed on daily wages or temporary or contract basis to claim
that they have a right to be absorbed in service. Merely because a temporary
employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term
of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular
service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if
the original appointment was not made by following a due process of
selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. Merely because an employee
had continued under cover of an order of the Court, would not be entitled to
any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. It would not be
24 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -25-
appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take
the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should
be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating
another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. If the
contractual employment is declared void on the ground that the parties were
not having equal bargaining power, it too would not enable the Court to
grant any relief to that employee. The claim acquired by him in the post in
which he is temporarily employed or the interest in that post cannot be
considered to be of such a magnitude as to enable the giving up of the
procedure established, for making regular appointments to available posts in
the services of the State.
12. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India and
others v. Vartak Labour Union, (2011) 4 SCC 200 rejected claim of
regularization of contractual employees who had worked for more than 30
years with Border Roads Organization.
13. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India and
others v. All India Trade Union Congress and others, (2019) 5 SCC 773,
following Vartak Labour Union (supra) has held that no contractual
employee can claim regularization. High Courts cannot direct authorities to
frame policy and regularize the contractual employees.
14. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2018
in Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others, CWP
No.17206 of 2014, set aside policy of regularization made by the State. The
Court has set aside policy on the ground that regularization of contractual
employees who have been appointed without following prescribed procedure
25 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -26-
amounts to back door entry and it amounts to violation of Articles 14, 16 &
309 of Constitution of India.
15. A two Judge Bench of Apex Court in Union of India v. Ilmo
Devi, (2021) 20 SCC 290 considered question of regularization of part time
employees of Union of India. The Apex Court while setting aside judgment
of this Court has held that High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
cannot ask State to regularize part time employees. The Court has further
held that part time employees cannot claim pay parity with regular
employees. The Court has noticed judgment of this Court in Para 3.4 and
returned findings in Para 16-19 which are reproduced as below:
“3.4. By the impugned common judgment and order [Union
of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] , the
High Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions with
the following directions : (Ilmo Devi case [Union of
India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] , SCC
OnLine P&H paras 22-23)“22. We, thus, direct the petitioner authorities to
revisit the whole issue in its right perspective and
complete the exercise to reformulate their policy and
take a decision to sanction the posts in phased manner
within a specified time schedule. Let such a decision
be taken within a period of six months from the date of
receiving a certified copy of this order.
23. Till the exercise as directed above, is undertaken,
the respondents shall continue in service with their
current status but those of them who have completed
20 years as part-time daily wagers, shall be granted
“minimum” basic pay of Group “D” post(s) w.e.f. 1-4-
2015 and/or the date of completion of 20 years
contractual service, whichever is later.”
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
26 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -27-
16. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions part-time employees are not entitled to
seek regularisation as they are not working against any
sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent
continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-
time temporary employees in a Government run institution
cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the
Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
17. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High Court
in the impugned judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo
Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] , more particularly,
directions in paras 22 and 23 are unsustainable and beyond
the power of the judicial review of the High Court in exercise
of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even
otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
the Union of India/Department subsequently came out with a
regularisation policy dated 30-6-2014, which is absolutely in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court in Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , which does not apply to the part-time
workers who do not work on the sanctioned post. As per the
settled preposition of law, the regularisation can be only as
per the regularisation policy declared by the
State/Government and nobody can claim the regularisation as
a matter of right dehors the regularisation policy. Therefore,
in absence of any sanctioned post and considering the fact
that the respondents were serving as a contingent paid part-
time SafaiKaramcharies, even otherwise, they were not
entitled for the benefit of regularisation under the
regularisation policy dated 30-6-2014.
18. Though, we are of the opinion that even the direction
contained in para 23 for granting minimum basic pay of
Group ‘D’ posts from a particular date to those, who have
completed 20 years of part-time daily wage service also is
unsustainable as the part-time wagers, who are working for
four to five hours a day and cannot claim the parity with27 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -28-
other Group ‘D’ posts. However, in view of the order passed
by this Court dated 22-7-2016 [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi,
2016 SCC OnLine SC 1933] while issuing notice in the
present appeals, we are not quashing and setting aside the
directions contained in para 23 in the impugned judgment
and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine
P&H 5144] so far as the respondents’ employees are
concerned.
19. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
both the appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order
[Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144]
passed by the High Court and, more particularly, the
directions contained in paras 22 and 23 in the impugned
judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC
OnLine P&H 5144] are hereby quashed and set aside.
However, it is observed that quashing and setting aside the
directions issued in terms of para 23 in the impugned
judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC
OnLine P&H 5144] shall not affect the case of the
respondents and they shall be entitled to the reliefs as per
para 23 of the impugned judgment and order [Union of
India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] passed by
the High Court.”
16. A two Judge bench of Supreme Court in Nihal Singh v. State
of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC 65 had the occasion to consider question of
regularization of Special Police Officers (SPOs) appointed under Section 17
of Police Act, 1861. A Division Bench of this Court relying upon an earlier
judgment of this court dismissed petitions of 20 SPOs and matter travelled to
Apex Court which turned down claim of the respondent-State of Punjab that
there are no sanctioned post to absorb appellants despite their service of
decades. The Court held that State cannot take undue advantage of judgment
of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). The said judgment cannot become
licence for exploitation by the State. After availing services for decades, it is
28 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -29-
not justified for the State to take a defence that there are no sanctioned posts
to absorb the appellants.
17. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand and others,
(2018) 8 SCC 238, the Apex Court dealt with denial of regularization and
held that State of Jharkhand has continued with irregular appointments for
almost a decade after decision in Uma Devi’s case (supra) and it was
nothing but exploitation of the employees by not giving them their benefits.
Resultantly, it was held that if they had completed 10 years of service, they
were to be regularized unless there is valid objection to their regularization.
Resultantly, the order of the High Court was set aside which had itself
placed reliance upon Uma Devi (supra).
18. In State of Karnataka and others v. M.L. Kesari and others
(2010) 9 SCC 246, the Supreme Court noticed misuse by the State and its
agencies, non-compliance of order of the Apex Court and denying benefits
to the employees. The Court noticed that the object as such was two folds.
Firstly, that persons who had put in more than 10 years of services were to
be considered for regularization in view of the long service. Secondly, it was
to ensure that departments do not perpetuate the practice of employing
persons on daily wage, adhoc or casual basis. It was held that persons who
had worked for more than 10 years on 10.04.2006 were entitled for
regularization and necessary directions were issued in the said case and
those not entitled because of lack of educational qualifications were to be
regularized on a lower post.
19. There are few employees who were terminated without
complying with provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They
approached Labour Court seeking setting aside of their termination. The
29 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -30-
Labour Court ordered to reinstate them with back wages and continuity of
service from the date of demand notice or date of termination. In few cases,
full back wages are awarded whereas in few 25/50%. They re-joined and
either are still working or have retired on attaining the age of
superannuation. They are also claiming regularization as per applicable
policy and their entitlement.
20. Few petitioners are claiming regularization as per 2011 policy.
They have been denied benefits of 2011 policy on the ground of non-
completion of 10 years service by 10.04.2006 or non-availability of
sanctioned posts etc.
21. There are few employees who have been regularized from
2014. They are getting pay and allowances as regular employees since 2014.
They are claiming that they were eligible for regularization as per policy of
2003 but were arbitrarily regularized in 2014. They should be regularized
from retrospective date as per policy of 2003. The employees who have not
been regularized, though working even prior to 2003, are getting pay and
allowances payable to temporary employees. The employees regularized in
2014 are getting higher pay and allowances than payable to temporary
employees. They are working with Municipal Committees/Municipal
Corporations. They were subjected to walk-in-interview and thereafter,
appointed on Class-IV posts.
22. The State Government in 2004 scrapped Old Pension Scheme
and introduced New Pension Scheme. The rights and liabilities arising out of
Old Pension Scheme are entirely different. If petitioners are regularized as
per 2003 policy, they would be entitled to Old Pension Scheme and it would
certainly create substantial burden on the State Exchequer.
30 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -31-
23. The State Government with intent to protect tenure of
temporary employees has introduced The Haryana Contractual Employees
(Security of Service) Act, 2024 (for short ‘2024 Act’). As per said Act, an
employee who has already completed 5 years service by the notified date
would be entitled to continuation of service till the age of superannuation.
They shall also be entitled to gratuity and leave encashment.
24. The respondent vide letter dated 21.12.2018 decided to create
posts for persons regularized under the regularization policy of 2003. In the
said notification, it was incorporated that Government has decided that
wherever the Administrative Department/Boards/Corporations/Autonomous
Units are regularizing persons under 2003-04 policies, the Administrative
Department with the approval of Finance Department may create some posts
of diminishing nature to adjust such employees. The Finance Department
was advised to give concurrence to creation to posts for diminishing cadre.
The notification dated 21.12.2018 is reproduced as below: –
“MOST URGENT
Subject: Creation of posts for persons regularized under
the regularization policies of year 2003-2004.
******
Will the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Haryana, Finance Department kindly refer to the subject
noted above?
2. It is intimated that vide Government notification
No.G.S.R.13/Const./Art.309/2007, dated 13.4.2007, the
regularization policies No. G.S.R.41/Const./Art.309/97,
G.S.R. 101/Const./Art.309/99, G.S.R.24/Const./Art 309/2003
and G.S.R.5/Const./Art 309/2004, dated 17.6.1997,
5.11.1999, 1.10.2003 and 10.2.2004 respectively were
rescinded. Thereafter, these policies were revived vide31 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -32-
Notification No.6/7/2014-1GSI, dated 18.6.2014 by
Government.
3. Further in pursuance of Hon’ble High Court interim
order dated 6.4.2018 in CWP No.15887 of 2018-Purushotam
Das Vs State of Haryana wherein matter of creation of
diminishing cadre for persons regularized under 2003-2004
policies No. G.S.R.24/Const./Art. 309/2003 dated 1.10.2003
and 10.2.2004 was under consideration with the State
Government.
4. The State Government has considered the matter and
decided that wherever the Administrative
Department/Boards/Corporations /Autonomous Units are
regularizing persons under the above mentioned
regularization policies, the Administrative Department, with
approval of Finance Department, may create some posts of
diminishing nature to adjust such employees.
5. The Finance Department is hereby advised to give
concurrence for creation of posts of diminishing cadre as and
when any Department/Board/Corporation/Autonomous Unit
submits a case for creating a post for any employee proposed
to be regularized under the regularization policies of 2003
and 2004.
6. The same practice would also be applicable in respect
of regularization policies dated 17.6.1997 and 5.11.1999.
However, payment of the arrears of regular pay scale may be
restricted to 38 months prior to the date of actual
regularization order and other benefits may be granted to the
employees.
Superintendent, General Services-I for Chief
Secretary to Government, HaryanaTo
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana,
Finance Department
U.O. No. 6/20/2018-1 GSI Dated, Chandigarh the 21st Dec.,
2018″
32 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -33-
In the said notification, it was further provided that arrears of
regular pay scale may be restricted to 38 months prior to the actual
regularization order and other benefits may be granted to the employee.
25. In the case in hand, most of the petitioners were appointed
much prior to judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). The
respondent in 2003 introduced regularization policy which lost its
significance post judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). The
State, in compliance of directions of the Supreme Court, withdrew its earlier
Policy of 2003 apart from three more and introduced Policy of 2011 w.e.f.
29.07.2011 whereunder many employees were regularized.
26. The petitioners were not regularized due to lack of sanctioned
posts, pending litigation etc. These employees continued to work and few of
them, as admitted by both sides, came to be regularized during 2014-16. The
respondent at its pleasure created few posts and adjusted few employees. It
was job of the State to create posts. The respondent uninterruptedly is
availing services of the petitioners for decades which shows that work is
available and there is need of workforce. The State despite availing services
cannot claim that regular posts are not available. Posts are created by State
and not by some unknown force. The Court cannot ask State to create or
abolish a post or structure/re-structure a cadre, nevertheless, State cannot
ignore mandate of Supreme Court. In the wake of judgment of Supreme
Court in Uma Devi (supra), State was duty bound to consider all the
employees who by the end of 2006 had already completed service of 10
years without Court intervention.
33 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -34-
Petitioners claiming regularization as per 1996 Policy: –
27. A very few petitioners are claiming regularization as per 1996
policy. They, because of following reasons, cannot be considered as per
1996 policy though may be eligible to be considered as per 2003 policy.
i. 1996 policy was neither withdrawn in 2007 nor re-
introduced.
ii. In view of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi
(supra), the State could not implement any policy of
regularization issued prior to the date of judgment.
iii. A period of more than three decades has passed away,
thus, there is no reason to regularize as per said policy.
Petitioners claiming regularization as per 2003 Policy: –
28. This Court in Balwinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana
and others, CWP No.2009 of 2016, decided on 31.01.2020; Ashish Sharma
and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.2158 of 2020, decided
on 13.03.2024; Usman and others v. State of Haryana and others, CWP
No.5880 of 2017 decided on 08.12.2023; CWP No.34585-2019, Ram
Rattan and others v. State of Haryana, decided on 19.10.2023, has directed
the respondent to consider claim of the petitioners therein as per policy of
2003. It is apt to notice that a Division Bench of this Court has dismissed a
bunch of intra-court appeals including LPA No.688 of 2021 filed against
judgment of Single Bench of this Court. The Division Bench considering
notification dated 18.06.2014 and letter dated 21.12.2018 of Chief Secretary
has held the employees entitled to 2003 policy. The relevant extracts of the
judgment read as: –
34 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -35-
“118. Thus keeping in view the judgment in State of
Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari & others, (2010) 9 SCC 247, we
are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judges
were well justified in directing consideration for
regularization as the claim was on the basis of the policies
which were in effect and were supplemented by others. The
persons had worked for the requisite period of time and were
seeking regularization as per the policies which were invogue
at that point of time and they were not continuing in service
on account of any litigation and did not have any interim
orders in their favour. The Apex Court had noticed that the
true effect of the directions passed in Uma Devi (supra) was
that persons who had been continuing for the period of 10
years without interim orders of the Tribunals and the
employer had not undertaken the exercise of regularization
within 6 months of the decision in Uma Devi (supra) then the
exercise was to be taken for the limited view and it would not
disentitle the employees for their right for regularization as a
one-time measure. Appointment of persons which was illegal
and irregular was clarified to the extent that the illegality
would be only if the appointee did not possess the required
minimum qualfications and the irregularity would be if the
person had been selected without undergoing the process of
open competitive selection but had the prescribed
qualifications. In the present cases we are dealing with cases
of Class-IV employees employed as Beldar/Mali/Labourer
and, therefore, the said legal impediment would not come in
the way.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
119. The Apex Court in State of Jharkhand and others Vs.
Kamal Prasad and others, (2014) 7 SCC 223 while
dismissing the appeals of the State and upholding the
judgment of the High Court, regarding the regularization
orders in favour of the Junior Engineers who had been
working for 29 years was held to be legal and by holding that
they were covered under the exceptions made in Uma Devi
(supra). Resultantly, while placing reliance upon the
judgment passed in Olga Tellis & others Vs. Bombay
35 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -36-
Municipal Corporation & others, (1985) 3 SCC 545, it was
held that the High Court had rightly come to the conclusion
that the action of the State was arbitrary and it shocked the
conscious of the Court that the persons had worked for 29
years and had been discharging permanent nature of duties.
Therefore, it was held that the judgment could not be vitiated
on account of any erroneous finding or suffering from any
error in law.
120. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that a window
had been kept open by the State that the policies dated
17.06.1997, 05.11.1999, 01.10.2003, 10.02.2004 were to be
applied to persons who had not been regularized and,
therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the counsel for the
State to argue that the policies stood withdrawn. The learned
Single Judges were justified in issuing directions for
consideration. As noticed above the claim is based on a legal
right for seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus and in such
circumstances it cannot be said that the learned Single
Judges were in error in allowing the writ petitions.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. All
pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.”
29. The respondent by notification dated 18.06.2014 inserted
proviso in the notification dated 13.04.2007 whereby previous policies were
withdrawn. As per said proviso, all the employees who could not be
regularized under the regularization policies of 17.06.1997, 05.11.1999,
01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004 due to administrative reasons but were otherwise
eligible shall be regularized w.e.f. the date they were eligible for
regularization. Till date, the said notification has not been withdrawn. It is
apt to notice that said notification was issued in exercise of power conferred
by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This Court in multiple
petitions, relying upon aforesaid notification, has held that State is bound to
consider claim of all the employees as per policy dated 01.10.2003. Despite
36 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -37-
repeated orders and existence of aforesaid notification, the State is arguing
contrary to its policies. The State is bound by its notification which is having
statutory force. Unless and until the said notification is withdrawn, the State
is bound to implement the same in letter and spirit.
30. In the light of afore-cited judgments of this Court and
notification dated 18.06.2014 coupled with letter dated 21.12.2018 of Chief
Secretary, Haryana, this Court, in view of principles of judicial precedents
and comity, has no option except to direct the respondent to consider claim
of petitioners as per policy of 2003.
Petitioners claiming regularization as per 2011 Policy: –
31. There are few petitioners who are claiming regularization as per
policy of 2011. As per said policy, the employee was required to complete
10 years service by 10.04.2006. The said policy was framed in the light of
judgment of Uma Devi (supra). The respondent has rejected claim of the
petitioners on the ground that they have not completed 10 years service by
10.04.2006. There is marginal shortfall. The petitioners are claiming that
marginal shortfall should be ignored especially in view of the fact that as per
judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra), policy was required to be
framed within 6 months from the date of judgment whereas respondent
framed policy in 2011 i.e. after the expiry of 5 years from the date of
judgment. The respondent should consider 10 years’ service as on the date of
introduction of 2011 policy.
32. The respondent is denying benefit of 2011 policy on the ground
that any relaxation in the prescribed minimum period would amount to re-
writing the policy. The question of waiver of condition of 10 years’ service
as on 10.04.2006 is pending before the Supreme Court still if this Court
37 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -38-
directs, the respondent would consider case of the petitioners as per 2011
policy subject to outcome of SLP (Civil) No.18374 of 2022.
33. Supreme Court recently in Jaggo v. Union of India and others,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, noticing judgment of Constitutional Bench in
Uma Devi (supra) has held that no employee can be kept temporary for an
indefinite period. An employee has right to be considered for regularization.
34. In the light of direction of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra)
to the effect that policy of regularization be made within 6 months from the
date of judgment and recent judgment of Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra),
this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider claim of
the petitioners in the light of 2011 policy as well as recent judgment of
Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra). The respondent would condone shortfall to
the extent of three months subject to outcome of SLP(Civil) No.18374 of
2022. It is further made clear that if petitioners are found eligible for
regularization as per Policy of 2011, they, without interest, would be entitled
to arrears from the date of filing petition before this Court.
Claim of petitioners who were regularized in 2014: –
35. The petitioners claim that they joined the respondent prior to
2003 as Daily Wager. They continued to work till their date of
superannuation. They, from time to time, made representation to the
respondent to regularize them as per policy of 2003 followed by policy of
2011. Their case was again considered in 2014 and they were regularized in
2014.
36. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners were
entitled to regularization as per policy of 2003 as well as 2011. They were
38 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -39-
considered for regularization as per those policies, however, never extended
benefit which was though extended to similarly situated employees. They
had objected to their regularization in 2014. The appointment letters of 2014
and their affidavits cannot deprive them from their valuable right accruing
from 2003 policy. The similarly situated employees were regularized as per
policy of 2003, thus, there would be violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India if they are not regularized from 2003.
37. The petitioners are heavily relying upon different judgments of
this Court. They are further claiming that by different judgments, Single
Judges as well as Division Benches have held the employees entitled to
regularization w.e.f. 01.10.2003 as per policy of 2003. From the perusal of
judgments cited by the petitioners, it is evident that there is no case where a
Coordinate or Division Bench of this Court has adverted to factum of
regularization of employees of Municipal Corporation in 2014 and thereafter
ordered to regularize as per policy of 2003. No Bench has considered the
fact that petitioners accepted terms and conditions of appointment letter and
furnished affidavit to this effect. The petitioners at this belated stage are
claiming that they are Class-IV employees and under compelled
circumstances accepted appointment letter as well as furnished affidavit.
Copy of one such appointment letter and affidavit is reproduced as below: –
Appointment Letter: –
“From
Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad.
To
Shri Umed Singh S/o Shri Natthi Singh,
Village Daulpur, Faridabad.
Memo No: MCF/EO/2014/4535
Date: 22/08/1439 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -40-
Subject- Regarding regularization on the post of Helper
to Water Pump Operator.
In compliance to the letter number 12/105/2014-5C1
dated 13.08.2014 of the Additional Chief Secretary, Haryana
Government, Urban Local Bodies Department, after being
found eligible after the interview conducted by this
Corporation on 19.08.2014, you will be selected on the basis
of the following conditions Regularly placed on the post of
Helper to Water Pump Operator in the fixed pay scale of Pay
Band 4440-7440+ Grade Pay Rs.1300 along with other
allowances etc. which are payable from time to time as per
the rules, regularized and placed on a probationary period of
two years.
1. Your services during the period of service in the
Municipal Corporation shall be governed by the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, the Haryana Municipal Employees
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998, the
instructions issued by the Government from time to time and
the rules adopted/to be adopted by this Corporation be
operated under.
2. If in the near future the Government will give you any
instructions, policy regarding the said appointment changes
will be automatically applicable to you.
3. If your work and conduct is found unsatisfactory
during the above probation period. So your services can be
terminated.
4. That you will give an affidavit to the effect that:-
a. That if you are married, you have a wife living.
b. You are not an employee dismissed from the
office of any Central Government/State
Government/Local Body etc.
c. You are not convicted by any court in any
criminal case.
5. You will have to get yourself medically examined by
the Civil Surgeon, Faridabad. If you are found to be suffering
from any disease or if you are found physically unfit for any
other reason, you will be declared unfit for service by the
Civil Surgeon, Faridabad, will not be kept in the services of.
6. You will be pre-character verification done by
Haryana Police Department and if you are found unfit for
government services by the police department for any reason,
you will not be kept regularly in the services of the
corporation.
7. The documents given by you at the time of interview
will be scrutinized and found wrong. Appropriate action will
be taken upon departure.
8. You will be appointed to any post in the State of
Haryana on the orders of the Appointing Authority/State
Government. Location/Department can be transferred to any
place.
9. You will not be given any salary/benefits in addition to
the salary etc. given to you before the date of regularization
40 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -41-
on 01.07.2014 and the claim made by you in this regard in
future will not be valid in any way. You will have to give an
affidavit attested by Executive Magistrate Ist Class.
10. Your services will be implemented under the
Contributory Pension Scheme after regularization.
11. Will you be entitled to any travel expenses for the
journey to be undertaken by you for joining the post?
Traveling Allowance/Daily Allowance will not be given.
If you accept the conditions mentioned above, then you
should submit its consent in writing and submit your joining
report to the Chief Engineer within seven days, otherwise the
said appointment letter will be considered cancelled.
Commissioner.”
Affidavit: –
I, Umaid Singh s/o Shri Natthi Singh, resident of
Dayalpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, Haryana
and I hereby solemnly declare that:
1. That I am a permanent resident of the above address.
2. That I am married, my wife’s name is Indravati, who is
alive.
3. That I am not an employee dismissed from the office of
any Central Government / State Government/Local
Body etc.
4. That I am not convicted by any court in any criminal
case.
5. That I have neither been given nor will be given any
salary/benefits other than the salary etc. given to me
before the date of regularization on 01.07.2014, on
which I have no objection.
6. That the above statements are correct.
7. That I have not been given, nor will be given any
salary/benefits other than the salary etc. given to me
before the date of regularization on 01.07.2014, on
which I have no objection, and, I will not do any kind
of club in future, if I do, it should not be considered
valid.
Deponent
Certified that all the statements in this affidavit are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
been concealed therein. dated 01.09.2014.
Deponent”
41 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -42-
38. The petitioners, as per terms and conditions of the appointment
letter, furnished their affidavit to the effect that they will not claim any other
benefit. They, at this stage, want to resile from said affidavit despite the fact
that they have already enjoyed fruit arising out of the appointment letter.
They have got salary since 2014 as payable to regular employees. All the
judgments cited by petitioners enunciate that no employee should be kept as
temporary or adhoc for an indefinite period. There is no judgment which
holds that an employee who was granted appointment letter as permanent
employee from a particular date as per policy/decision, can claim
regularization from retrospective date despite accepting permanent post and
terms & conditions of appointment letter.
39. From the perusal of appointment letter, it is evident that
petitioner was appointed as regular employee on the post of Helper to Water
Pump Operator. It was mentioned in the appointment letter that an interview
was conducted on 19.08.2014 and he was found eligible in the interview. He
was subjected to police verification as well as medical examination. In the
terms & conditions, it was pointed out that he would not be entitled to any
other benefit and he shall furnish affidavit to the effect that he would not
demand any benefit in future.
40. In view of permanent appointment of the petitioners and their
acceptance of terms & conditions of appointment letter, they waived their
rights accruing from previous policies. They happily accepted terms and
conditions of appointment letter and worked as per said letter. They cannot
be heard to say that appointment letter must relate back to 2003 as per policy
of 2003. The petitioners were not regularized in 2014 on the basis of past
service whereas it was their fresh appointment as a regular employee though
42 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -43-
they were extended age relaxation. They were subjected to walk-in-
interview and appointed after following prescribed procedure. If they are
extended regular post from retrospective date, it would be contrary to their
appointment letter and affidavit. It would also be contrary to principle of
estoppel.
Conclusion: –
41. In the wake of above discussion and findings, it is hereby held:-
i. No petitioner would be regularized as per policy of 1996;
ii. The respondent shall consider and decide claim of
petitioners, within 6 months from today, who are
claiming regularization as per policy of 2003;
iii. If any of the petitioners is found eligible to regularization
as per policy of 2003, he shall be entitled to arrears from
the date of filing petition before this Court. The arrears
shall not carry interest. If any petitioner has already
retired, his/her pensionary benefits will also be
fixed/revised apart from arrears from the date of filing
petition before this Court. It is made clear that this Court
has not declared that policy of 2003 is applicable to each
instrumentality of the State Government. The competent
authority of each organization would independently
examine this aspect and employee would be granted
opportunity of hearing if any adverse opinion is formed.
iv. The respondent shall consider and decide claim of
petitioners, within 6 months from today, who are
43 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -44-
claiming regularization as per policy of 2011. The
respondent while deciding claim of employees as per
policy of 2011 shall take care of findings recorded
hereinabove.
v. If any of the petitioner is found eligible to regularization
as per policy of 2011, he shall be entitled to arrears from
the date of filing petition before this Court. The arrears
shall not carry interest.
vi. Any employee who has already been made permanent by
way of appointment letters issued in 2014 shall not be
entitled to benefit of previous policies of regularization.
vii. The petitioners who are not eligible to benefit of policy
of 2003 or 2011 shall be considered as per 2024 Act.
Their claim would also be reconsidered as per policy of
2014 after final decision of Supreme Court with respect
to validity of policy of 2014.
42. All the petitions are hereby disposed of in above terms.
43. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would hasten to
add that respondent in 2007, in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in
Uma Devi (supra), withdrew its earlier policies of regularization and
introduced fresh policy in 2011 which was strictly in terms of judgment of
Supreme Court. There was no reason to bring into force notification dated
18.06.2014. The said notification was in the teeth of Constitution Bench
judgment in Uma Devi (supra). This Court cannot form any opinion
contrary to judgments of this Court as discussed hereinabove, however, is of
44 of 45
::: Downloaded on – 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011927
`
CWP-10071-2022 & connected cases -45-
the opinion that notification dated 18.06.2014 was issued in stark
contradiction of judgment of Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra).
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
22.01.2025
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
45 of 45
::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:43:57 :::
[ad_1]
Source link