Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasdeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 April, 2026
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CWP-5684-2026
Daljeet Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
2) CWP-5766-2026
Rohi Ram and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Reserved on: 09.03.2026
Pronounced on: 22.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
3) CWP-8371-2026
Jasdeep Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
Reserved on: 19.03.2026
Pronounced on: 22.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
4) CWP-10623-2026
Ravinder Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Pronounced on: 22.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -2-
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate
with Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in all the aforementioned petitions)
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate and
Ms. Priya Jarial, Advocate
for respondent No.2-PEPSU Road Transport Corporation
(in all cases).
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned
petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose an identical
question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from
CWP-5684-2026.
2. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ, especially in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the office of respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioners, who have been working at various posts in the office of
respondent-PEPSU for the last 10 to 20 years. A further prayer is made for
issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant
all consequential benefits arising from the same.
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -3-
CONTENTIONS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners
were appointed on various posts (mechanic, upholster, fireman, driver,
conductor etc.) by the competent authority albeit through an outsourcing
agency. The petitioners have been working with the respondent-PEPSU for 10-
20 years on contractual basis against regular sanctioned posts with their terms
being extended year after year. Additionally, the buses plied by the respondent-
PEPSU as well as their time table and routes, are prepared by the State
instrumentality itself and is common for both the regular employees and
temporary employees. In fact, admittedly, the duties entrusted to both sets of
employees are interchangeable. As such, there is no difference in the work
allocated to them in nature or quantum. Thus, in view of the long service
rendered by the petitioners wherein they have been performing the same duties
as their regular counterparts, multiple representations for regularization and
consequential benefits were made. However, to no avail. Learned counsel relies
upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs.
Union of India 2025 AIR SC 296; Vinod Kumar and others vs. Union of
India and others (2024) 9 SCC 327; and Shripal and Another vs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as the judgement of this
Court in Hans Raj and others vs. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (CWP-
1221-2021 decided on 03.09.2025), to contend that the petitioners are entitled
to regularisation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-PEPSU submits that
the petitioners were engaged through M/s S.S. Service Providers, an
outsourcing agency, which is thus, their principal employer. Furthermore, it is
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -4-
the agreement between the respondent-PEPSU and M/s S.S. Service Providers
that has been extended from time to time, as is discernible from Annexures R-
2/2 to R-2/6). The respondents have been remitting monthly payments to M/s
S.S. Service Providers, which in turn disburses salaries to the petitioners. It is
further submitted that, on certain occasions, the services of the petitioners were
reverted to the said agency, resulting in breaks in their engagement with
respondent-PEPSU. Accordingly, it is contended that no direct employer-
employee relationship exists between the petitioners and respondent-PEPSU.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot claim the relief
under the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged
and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016 as the same was kept in
abeyance owing to the challenge of its vires before this Court in CWP-4187-
2017, titled as Anika Gupta and another vs. State of Punjab. Furthermore,
respondent-PEPSU is governed by the PEPSU Road Transport Corporation
(Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations), 1981, which do not
contain any provision regarding regularization of the services of outsourced
employees. Learned counsel refers to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others AIR
2006 SC 1806 and The Municipal Council Rep by its Commissioner Nandyal
Municipality Kurnool District AP vs. K. Jayaram and others in SLP(C)
17711-17713/2019, decided on 16.12.2025, to submit that the claim of the
petitioners for regularization is not maintainable.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -5-
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioners were engaged through an
outsourcing agency namely M/s S.S. Service Providers. The petitioners have
been working consistently for 10 to 20 years, respectively, against sanctioned
posts. Admittedly, the nature and quantum of duties of the petitioners are
identical to their regular counterparts. However, the claim for the regularization
of their services has been contested by respondent-PEPSU on the ground that
there is no employer-employee relationship between them as M/s S.S. Service
Providers continues to be the principal employer of the petitioners.
6. At this juncture, it may be profitable to refer to the judgment
rendered by a four-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra 1956 INSC 71,
wherein, speaking through Justice N.H. Bhagwati, the following was observed:
“14. The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the
prima facie test for the determination of the relationship between
master and servant is the existence of the fight in the master to
supervise and control the work done by the servant not only in the
matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner
in which he shall do his work, or to borrow the words of Lord Uthwatt
at page 23 in Mercy Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffith
(Liverpool) Ltd., 1947-1 AC 1, at p. 23.
“The proper test is whether or not the hirer had authority to
control the manner of execution of the act in question.””
(Emphasis added)
Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mktg.
Soc. Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 INSC 89.
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -6-
6.1. Further, a three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hussainbhai vs. Alath Factory Tezhilali Union 1978 INSC 118, speaking
through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, opined as follows:
“5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a
worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and
these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in
fact, the employer. He has economic control over the worker’s
subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason,
chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate
contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct
relationship ex contractu is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil
or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we
discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper
arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the
immediate contractor. Myriad devices, half-hidden in fold after fold of
legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of
industry, the local conditions and the like, may be resorted to when
labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based
on Arts, 38-39-42, 43 and 43-A of the Constitution. The court must be
astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not
be misled by the maya of legal appearances.
6. If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour
rendered to produce goods and services for the benefit and satisfaction
of an enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the presence of
dubious intermediaries or the make-believe trappings of detachment
from the Management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story may
vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The liability cannot be shaken
off.”
(Emphasis added)
6.2. A conjoint reading of Dharangadhara Chemical Works (supra)
and Hussainbhai (supra) indicates that in order to establish an employer-
employee relationship, emphasis must be on the substance of the arrangement
rather than its form. As such, the primary test to determine existence of an
employer-employee relationship is- whether the principal employer exercises
control and supervision, not only over the work assigned to the employee but
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -7-
also the manner of its execution. Additionally, the Courts must also examine if
the livelihood and continued employment of the employee are substantially
dependent upon the principal employer. As such, where the situation satisfies
the aforementioned parameters, the Court is required to lift the veil of
contractual arrangements to discern the real nature of the relationship and not
be misled by the ‘legal appearances and documents.’
7. On that note, 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
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 Articles 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 (supra), Vinod
Kumar (supra) and Shripal (supra).
7.1. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1735, 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 isNEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -8-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 of ends 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
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -9-
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 added)
8. Furthermore, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Uma Devi (supra) proscribes regularization of an employee, who was
granted backdoor entry into public employment, without following a
transparent process. Speaking through Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, the
following was held:
“42. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India would include the right to employment cannot also
be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is
a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to
employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or
even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a
beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the
instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of
depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete
for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of
right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have
got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The
obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of
India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate
means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the
courts recognise that an appointment to a post in Government service or
in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper
selection in the manner recognised by the relevant legislation in the
context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of
individualizing justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the
constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few
who are before the court. The Directive Principles of State Policy have
also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part
III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and
not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument
based on Article 21 of the Constitution.
43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they
approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the
employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanentNEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -10-service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises
whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this
juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing
Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case
arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the
Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus
may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown
that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved
party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This
classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in
favour of the employees directing the Government to make them
permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an
enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State
has a legal duty to make them permanent.
44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.
Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra), and B.N. Nagarajan
(supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons
in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees
have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention
of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the
services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the
light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to
and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned
posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where
temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need
not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further
by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
(Emphasis added)
8.1. Recently, a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Madan Singh vs. State of Haryana 2026 SCC OnLine SC 628, speaking
through Justice A.S. Chandurikar, held as follows:
“18. The object behind issuing these two Notifications for
regularising the service of Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, who hadNEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -11-been working on ad hoc/contractual/daily wage/work charged basis is
evident from the Notifications itself. The same intended to cover such
employees, who had been deprived of the benefit of the policy of
regularisation dated 07.03.1996. The criteria prescribed was not in any
manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be
satisfied while seeking regular appointment. What is most relevant, in
our view, is that such engagement should have been initially made on a
sanctioned post and such engagement on the sanctioned post ought to be
continuing even on the date of regularisation of service. This would
clearly indicate that when such engagement on ad hoc basis was initially
made, sanctioned posts were available and this position continued for a
number of years so as to enable regularisation of services of the
incumbents holding such posts. The criteria prescribed, therefore, is very
much in tune with the criteria that would have otherwise been prescribed
had the post been advertised for regular recruitment. We, therefore, find
that the exercise of regularising the services of ad hoc employees, who
had been left out from getting benefit of the earlier policy that was
granted to some ad hoc employees was now being granted to the
remaining ad hoc employees. It is not the case of the original petitioners
before the High Court, who had challenged the aforesaid Notifications
that all ad hoc employees, who were eligible to have their services
regularised pursuant to the policy dated 07.03.1996, had already been
regularised and that the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014
were intended to facilitate the regularisation of services of some
ineligible ad hoc employees. There is no such material placed on record
even to indicate that the beneficiaries of the regularisation policy vide
Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were in fact not eligible
to such benefit under the policy dated 07.03.1996. The exercise
undertaken by the General Administration Department in issuing these
Notifications, therefore, cannot be questioned on the ground of
arbitrariness, illegality or as being the outcome of a mala fide exercise of
executive power. These relevant aspects do not appear to have been gone
into by the High Court while holding otherwise.
19. Much emphasis has been placed on the aspect that despite the policy
of regularisation being required to be undertaken as an “one time
measure” as enunciated in paragraph 44 of the decision in Umadevi
(supra), the State Government sought to undertake this exercise of
regularisation belatedly and in a perpetual manner. In this regard, we
may usefully refer to observations of this Court in M L Kesari (supra)
wherein this aspect has been clarified. In paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said
decision, it has been held as under:
“5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the
general principles against ‘regularization’ enunciated in Umadevi,
if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10
years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit orNEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -12-protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In
other words, the State Government or its instrumentality
should have employed the employee and continued him in
service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten
years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be
illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not
made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the
persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum
qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be
illegal. But where the person employed possessed the
prescribed qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected without
undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such
appointments are considered to be irregular.
(iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government
or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of
those irregularly appointed employees who had served for
more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any
interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure.
Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in
motion within six months from the date of its decision
(rendered on 10.4.2006).
6. The term ‘one-time measure’ has to be understood in its proper
perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in
Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should
undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual,
daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more
than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and
subject them to a process verification as to whether they are
working against vacant posts and possess the requisite
qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.
7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi,
cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still
pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and
instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization
process. On the other hand, some Government departments or
instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding
several employees from consideration either on the ground that
their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In
such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be
considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not
lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because
the onetime exercise was completed without considering their
cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of
Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -13-
daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of
continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection
of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had
held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did
not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the
benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should
consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time
exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the
employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of
Umadevi, are so considered.
8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is
two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than
ten years of continuous service without the protection of any
interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision
in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in
view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the
departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of
employing persons on daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods
and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they
have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the
constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and
appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons
who have worked for more than ten years as on 10.4.2006 (the
date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim
order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the
requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for
regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken
such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision
in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard
to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be
considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in
Umadevi as a one-time measure.”
20. Thus, given the object behind issuing the Notifications dated
16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which was primarily to grant the benefit of
regularisation to those remaining Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ ad hoc,
contractual/daily wage employees, which benefit had been granted to
similarly placed employees pursuant to Notification dated 07.03.1996,
we do not find any reason whatsoever to hold that the Notifications dated
16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were liable to be quashed as being arbitrary,
illegally or contrary to the law laid down by this Court in its various
decisions.
21. On 07.07.2014, the General Administration Department of the State
Government came up with a policy decision to regularise the services of
Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees. This policy, however, was slightly
distinct from the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014.
Significantly, what was provided for was that the services of ad hoc
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -14-
employees, who had or were to complete ten years of service at the
future date of 31.12.2018 were to be regularised even if his/her original
appointment was not made through the process of advertisement and
interview. The criteria prescribed was (a) possessing the prescribed
qualification for the post on the date of appointment/engagement, (b)
the work discharged was to be on a sanctioned vacant post at the time
of the initial engagement and also at the time of regularisation, (c) the
reservation policy as applicable ought to be borne in mind and (d) no
relaxation in the prescribed criteria was permissible.
In our view, the Notifications dated 07.07.2014 seek to regularise the
engagement of such ad hoc employees, who were not initially engaged
through the process of advertisement nor after facing any interview. Such
stipulations are not found in the earlier Notifications dated 16.06.2014
and 18.06.2014, which we have held to be valid. There is no justification
placed on record by the State of Haryana as to why services of such ad
hoc employees, who had not been engaged on the basis of any
advertisement or interview were sought to be regularised, that too by
taking into consideration a future cut-off date of 31.12.2018. The claim
of being engaged sans an advertisement itself gives rise to doubts as
regards the manner of engagement. Absence of any record whatsoever
of the manner of engagement does not inspire any confidence in such
process. That such ad hoc employee has not faced any interview is
another relevant feature. Further, there does not appear to be any
rational basis for fixing a future cut-off date, which is beyond four
years from the date of the Notifications. This would indicate that even
when it was possible to initiate a process of regular recruitment after
issuance of the Notifications dated 07.07.2014, by virtue of the
impugned Notifications, number of posts which could have been filled
in through regular recruitment were not liable to be advertised. The
intent was to accommodate such ad hoc employees, who came to be
engaged, albeit temporarily, in the absence of any public advertisement
or interview. We see no justifiable reason to uphold the validity of the
two Notifications dated 07.07.2014 since they intend to regularise the
services of such ad hoc employees, who were engaged without any
advertisement and without being interviewed. To that extent, the
impugned judgment of the High Court holding the Notifications dated
07.07.2014 to be arbitrary and illegal does not deserve to be interfered
with.
22. We may indicate that we have not examined the contention raised by
the appellants based on Article 162 of the Constitution of India and the
permissibility of exercising executive powers in such matters. This is for
the reason that the High Court has not struck down the Notifications on
that count. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to go into the said
aspect.”
(Emphasis added)
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -15-
8.2. Highlighting the importance of issuing an advertisement before
engaging someone in public employment, a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty(2011) 3
SCC 436, speaking through Dr. Justice B.S Chauhan, held as follows:
“APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT:
18. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names
from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of
nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the
conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the
requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must
be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for
applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be
considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from
Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of
the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the
open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide
circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely
calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the
requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. (Vide: Delhi
Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration,
Delhi & Ors., 1992(1) S.C.T. 425 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 789.; State
of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., 1992(3) S.C.T. 201 : AIR
1992 Supreme Court 2130.; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam,
Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC
216.; Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors.,
1998(1) S.C.T. 533 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 331.; Binod Kumar
Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahoto & Ors., 2005(2) S.C.T. 663 : AIR
2005 Supreme Court 2103.; National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir
Singh, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2319.; Telecom District Manager &
Ors. v. Keshab Deb, 2008(4) S.C.T. 32 : 2008(5) R.A.J. 588 : (2008) 8
SCC 402.; State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., 2011(1)
S.C.T. 208 : (2009) 5 SCC 65.; and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v.
Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214).
19. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be
appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting
applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by
merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note
on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the
candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -16-
employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief
including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory
compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The
equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such
appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible
persons to compete on merit.”
(Emphasis added)
8.3. In K.Jayaram (supra), a two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, made the following observations:
“8. From the facts discussed above, it is clear that the appellant had no
direct connection with the actual persons who were employed by the
contractor, i.e., the respondents. The obligation and responsibility of the
appellant was to pay to the contractor the amount which had been
contracted and agreed to between the appellant and the contractor, and
the responsibility then was that of the contractor to ensure payment of
wages and other emoluments as per the terms of the contract to the
persons who were actually sent by the contractor to the appellant for
performing various types of job.
9. The Court would pause here to indicate that it is not anybody’s case
that the mode of employment through a contractor itself was illegal or
there was any illegality in the terms and conditions of the contract so as
to make it ultra vires any constitutional provision or to make it
discriminatory, and further there has been no challenge to such contract
or any of the terms stipulated in the contract. Another issue on facts,
which has been addressed by learned counsel for the respondents is that
the respondents could not have been exploited by the parties and the fact
that they were the same persons being sent, though through different
contractors itself shows that the relationship was direct and only a sham
camouflage was created; that of a contractor being the intermediary. To
this, in our considered view, the answer may not be in clear black and
white terms and is still a grey area for the reason that even if the
respondents were the same persons who actually worked for the
appellant, there can be instances where the new contractor, to maintain
continuity and to ensure that there is no complaint from the employer, the
appellant in the present case, continues with the same persons who were
already employed and were working with the appellant. Thus, there is
argument for and against such stand, which we will not dwell on any
further. Another issue which has been flagged by learned senior counsel
for the respondents is that the respondents being in the position they are,
and the relief given being the minimum of the time scale of the pay
attached to the regular post cannot be termed as giving them something
which was not due or something excessive, for ultimately they also haveNEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -17-a family to support and they are also performing the job which is
performed by people on the regular establishment. We have absolutely no
doubt in our mind that such issue raised by learned senior counsel is of
relevance, but the Court feels that the mode of contractual employment,
that too, by a contractor and not directly by the employer will have to be
seen in a different light in the eyes of law. If all such distinctions
between a regular employee and such contractual employees is not
made, then the basic concept of hiring through various modes and in
different capacity would lose its purpose and sanctity and ultimately
everybody would be getting exactly the same benefit. This cannot be
permitted in law for the reason that employment under a State entity is
a public asset and every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it.
In a regular employment, directly made by the said State entity, there
are safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is
transparent and fulfills a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible
persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the
right person. When employees/workmen are taken through a
contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom
and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to
the principal. This is where the difference lies, which is a very valid
distinction in law. The reason why there are safeguards in regular
appointment is that there should not be any favoritism or other
extraneous consideration where persons, only on merit, are recruited
through a fully transparent procedure known in law. If the persons who
are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given
equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving
premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is
no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would
employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic
qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required. The
judgment/order relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant aptly
covers the field in the present case. The judgment cited by learned senior
counsel for the respondents is basically different on facts for the reason
that there the contractual employment was directly by the principal and
in that background contractual workers have been regularized.”
(Emphasis added)
9. Thus, the cumulative effect of Uma Devi(supra), Mamata
Mohanty (supra) and K.Jayaram (supra) is that the State or its
instrumentalities cannot offer public employment without engaging in a
transparent process that favours meritocracy, lest it may be construed as
backdoor entry. On that note, adverting to the facts of the present case, the
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -18-
petitioners were appointed in furtherance of duly issued advertisements
(Annexure A-1 colly). The letters (Annexure A-1 colly) exchanged between
M/s S.S. Service Providers reflects that permission was granted by Khalsa
Senior Secondary School, Patiala to allow use of the school premises to
conduct a written test for recruiting clerical staff for respondent-PEPSU on
01.12.2013. Further, a type test was conducted for the posts of Data Entry
Operator-cum-Clerk, Assistant Cashier and Clerk at Thapar University, Patiala
on 19.06.2017. Pursuant to the same, a merit list was prepared and the eligible
candidates were invited for counselling. As a matter of fact, the medical fee of
Rs.100/- paid by petitioner-Rohi Ram was deposited in the account of
respondent-PEPSU, as also discernible from the receipt issued in the name of
the Managing Director thereof. Further still, the petitioners were engaged
against sanctioned posts and possessed the requisite qualifications to be
considered for regular appointment to the same. Therefore, clearly, the
petitioners were recruited by engaging in a transparent process, initiated in
pursuance of an advertisement, and as such, their regularization will not fall
foul of the ratio culled out in Uma Devi (supra).
10. Outsourcing cannot be allowed to metamorphose into a convenient
veil to sidestep fair engagement practices. Where the principal employer
exercises control and supervision over the manner of work, and the worker’s
livelihood is substantially dependent on the principal employer, the Courts must
endeavour to look beyond the façade by lifting the veil created by the
intermediaries and declare the principal employer as the employer in fact.
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -19-
11. Lastly, it is not a case where the petitioners were picked up from
the road and granted public employment. Rather, advertisements were issued
for initiation of a selection process on the basis of specific eligibility criteria,
which was followed by the test and preparation of a merit list. In this context,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuous engagement of the
petitioners, for work that bears a perennial nature, begs the inference that the
respondent-PEPSU is attempting to escape its liability by confining the rights
of the petitioners to that of an outsourced employee. The element of control and
supervision exercised by respondent-PEPSU is clearly discernible and thus, the
outsourcing agency becomes merely a conduit. As such, this Court finds it
apposite to pierce through the veil of the sham contract between the petitioners
and M/s S.S. Service Providers, the intermediary agency, and hold that the
respondent-PEPSU is the real employer of the petitioners. Reliance in this
regard may also be placed on the judgment rendered by a Constitutional Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. National
Union Water Front Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1.
• The benefit of this judgment is extended to all similarly situated
contractual outsourced employee serving the respondent-PEPSU
12. It must be clarified that the present judgment shall operate as a
judgment in rem, intended to extend the benefit to all similarly situated persons
irrespective of whether they have approached this Court or not. Reference in
this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -20-
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava, 2014(4) SCT 648, wherein the following was held:
“23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can
be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is
given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal
rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons
did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated
differently.
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions
in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those
persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases
and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only
because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached
the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered
in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They
would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the
acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where
the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem
with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the Court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person.
Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the
decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of
India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was
in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue
to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated
expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the
tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the
benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy
that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or
acquiescence.”
(emphasis added)
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CWP-5684-2026; CWP-5766-2026
CWP-8371-2026 & CWP-10623-2026 -21-
CONCLUSION
13. In view of the discussion above, all the aforementioned petitions
are allowed in the following manner:
(i) 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 the said period, they 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 vs. State of Punjab, CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of
Haryana and others vs. Jai Bhagwan, LPA No.1892 of 2019.
(ii) In cases where a petitioner has been engaged without
undergoing a transparent selection process pursuant to an advertisement
or public notice, he/she shall not be entitled to regularization.
Nonetheless, in view of their long and continuous service, the
respondents are directed to grant such petitioners the minimum of the
pay scale applicable to the post held by him/her, in terms of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit
Singh and others, 2016 INSC 993.
14. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
22.04.2026
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
NEHA
2026.04.23 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh