Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khazan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 February, 2026
CWP-38147-2025 -1-
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-38147-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.02.2026
Khazan Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, Advocate and
Mr. Pankaj Mohan Kansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. Present petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent
No.3, vide which claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services w.e.f.
01.10.2003 instead of 02.01.2014 has been rejected and further to issue a writ
in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize his services
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:34 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -2-
w.e.f. 01.10.2003 in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-3) and
the decision dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-13).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that vide
office order dated 15.12.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Cattle Pond
Moharrir on daily wages and was posted in Village Rathpur, Pinjore, where he
worked upto 18.08.1999. On 01.10.2003, Government of Haryana framed a
regularization policy (Annexure P-3), wherein it is provided that services of the
employees, who have completed 03 years, would be regularized. Consequent
to his transfer from Rathpur to Kharak Mangoli as Muharar w.e.f. 19.08.1999.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 12.10.2001, the petitioner was transferred under
the management of Municipal Committee, Panchkula, however, he was not
allowed to join there on the ground that he did not possess the requisite
qualifications and due to non-availability of sanctioned post of Muharar.
Thereafter, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute bearing Ref. No.327 of
2002 against termination of his services, which was allowed vide award dated
21.09.2005 with a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service and full
back wages with immediate effect. However, the said award was challenged by
respondent No.3 before this Court by way of filing CWP-19946-2005 and
during pendency of the same, the petitioner was joined on the post of
Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.06.2006. The said petition was partly allowed vide
judgment dated 03.07.2007 with a direction that back wages be allowed to the
extent of 25% only.
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -3-
3. It is further contended that the petitioner submitted representations
dated 10.12.2008 and 04.06.2012 (Annexure P-7) requesting the respondents to
regularize his services, however, the same were not considered. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP-22872-2012, which was
disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2012 with a direction to decide the
aforesaid representations (Annexure P-7). Further, finding the petitioner
eligible for regularization under the policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-3),
his services were regularized vide order dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure P-11)
with effect from the date of passing of the said order. However, the respondents
forcibly obtained an affidavit from the petitioner to the effect that his services
would be regularized only if he would give an undertaking not to claim the
benefits of his past service. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the
respondents to regularized his services w.e.f. 01.10.2003 instead of 02.01.2014,
however, nothing was done. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ
petition i.e. CWP-18669-2024 before this Court and the same was disposed of
vide order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-15) with a direction to consider and
decide the representation (Annexure P-11) therein. In purported compliance,
claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 19.09.2025
(Annexure P-1) solely on the basis of undertaking obtained from him.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner
relies upon a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand
Vs. State of Punjab, 1988 (2) PLR 223 and the judgment passed by this Court
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -4-
in CWP-28761-2025 titled as Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,
decided on 25.09.2025.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that there
is a delay of about 10 years in raising the grievance regarding obtaining of
undertaking on 02.01.2014. As such, at this belated stage, claim of the
petitioner cannot be considered.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner is
serving respondent No.3-Corporation as Class IV employee, who was made to
furnish an affidavit dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure P-2) before his regularization
that he would not claim the benefits of his past service. The petitioner did not
have a real choice and had to submit to the whimsical approach of respondent
No.3-Corporation. As such, in view of Sections 16, 19A and 23 the Indian
Contract Act, 1872, which declares any contract, which has been entered into
under undue influence as voidable or where the object of the said contract is
against public policy, as void, respondent No.3-Corporation cannot be allowed
to take shelter of the affidavit (Annexure P-2) to justify denying the petitioner
his legal right.
7. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was unjustly
terminated by respondent No.3-Corporation. Vide award dated 21.09.2005
(Annexure P-5), learned Labour Court, Ambala had directed the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages. Much to
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -5-
the chagrin of this Court, the act and conduct of respondent No.3-Corporation
demonstrates no regard for the said award.
8. Further, a Full Bench of this Court in Kesar Chand‘s case (supra)
has opined that the period spent by an employee as work-charged/daily
wages/ad hoc employee prior to regularization would also be counted towards
pensionary benefits. Speaking through Justice G.R. Majithia, the following was
opined: –
“19. In the light of the above, let us examine the validity of rule
3.17 (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II. This rule says
that the period of service in a work-charged establishment shall
not be taken into account in calculating the qualifying service.
After the services of a work-charged employee have been
regularised he becomes a public servant. The service is under the
Government and is paid by it. This is what was precisely stated in
the Industrial Award dated June 1, 1972, between the Workmen
and the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B.& R.), Establishment Branch,
Punjab , Patiala, which was published in the Government Gazette
dated July 14, 1972. Even otherwise, the matter was settled by the
Punjab Government Memo No. 14095-BRI (3)-72/5383 dated 6th
February, 1973 (Annexure P7) where it was stated that all those
workcharged employees who had put in ten years of service or
more as on 15th August, 1972, their service would be deemed to
have been regularised. Once the service of a work charged
employee have been regularised, there appears to be hardly any
logic to deprive him of the Pensionary benefits as are available
to other public servants under rule 3.17 of the Rules. Equal
protection of laws must mean the protection of equal laws for all5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -6-persons similarly situated. Article 14 strike at arbitrariness
because a provision which is arbitrary involves the negation of
equality. Even the temporary or officiating service under the
State Government had to be reckoned for determining the
qualifying service. It looks to be illogical that the period of
service spent by an employee in a work charged establishment
before his regularisation has not been taken into consideration
for determining his qualifying service. The classification which
is sought to be made among Government servants who are
eligible for lesion and those who started as workcharged
employees and their services regularised subsequently, and the
others is not based on any intelligible criteria and, therefore, is
not sustainable at law. After the services of a work – charged
employee have been regularised, he is a public servant like any
other servant. To deprive him of the pension is not only unjust
and inequitable but is hit by the vice of arbitrariness, and for
these reasons the provisions of sub rule (ii) of rule 3.17 of the
Rules have to be struck down being violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.”
(emphasis added)
9. This Court has been constrained to observe a trend where long
term employees are engaged on ad hoc basis, in spite of the perennial nature of
the services rendered by them. The State, being a constitutional employer,
cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of
sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational
qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its
instrumentality for a significant time period. Such an approach would be
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -7-
violative of fundamental rights of the temporary employees enshrined in
Articles 14, 16 & 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 Vs. Union of India and others, 2025
AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others Vs. Union of India, (2024) 1 SCR
1230 and Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221.
10. 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 is
misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not
an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public
employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to
sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgment 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
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -8-
case….
xxx xxx xxx
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 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 of ices running.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. It also appears that both the States of Punjab and Haryana tend to
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -9-
formulate policies in order to circumvent implementation of judgments
rendered by the Constitutional Courts. More often than not, the claim for
regularization is neither accepted nor denied and the applicant is kept in limbo
unnecessarily. The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or
contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular
work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity. The
State and its instrumentalities being model employer can’t perpetuate such
exploitation and use excuses like financial constraints, non availability of
sanctioned post, and lack of qualification or decision by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as talisman to deny
well deserved regularization on account of their perennial nature of long
periods of work at par with their counterparts working on regular posts.
Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgments rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14 SCC
65, a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Sarwan
Ram, 2025 NCPHHC 65364 as well as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Amrish Sharma and others Vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP-19238-
2013, decided on 26.02.2024.
12. As such, this Court finds that the impugned order dated
19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) has been passed entirely on the basis of affidavit
(Annexure P-2), which is an illegal document and was obtained from the
petitioner forcibly to deny him rightful claim regarding seniority and other
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::
CWP-38147-2025 -10-
service benefits.
13. This Court, prima facie, satisfies with the arguments raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner, however, at this stage, respondent No.3 is
directed to treat the present petition as comprehensive representation and
decide the same in the light of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kesar
Chand‘s case (supra) and judgments rendered by this Court in Harbans Lal
Vs. The State of Punjab and others, CWP-2371-2010, decided on 31.08.2010
as well as Ranjit Singh‘s case (supra), after affording an opportunity of
hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
14. Disposed of accordingly.
15. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found to the relief claimed
in the present petition, same be granted to him forthwith.
16. In case respondent No.3-Corporation deviates from the directions
issued by this Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appropriate
application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the
contempt proceedings before this Court.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
13.02.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 16-02-2026 23:28:35 :::