Calling Daily Wagers' Service 'Casual' Is Morally Unjust, Shouldn't Be Left Stranded In Twilight Years: Punjab & Haryana High Court
In a strong observation on the treatment of contractual workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stated that labeling the service of daily wagers as merely 'casual' is "morally unjust." The Court emphasized that individuals who devote their entire working lives to public service should not be left without security or support in their twilight years.
The Court allowed plea of Daily wagers to regularise their employment, who were working in the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), since 1989, performing duties similar to those of regular employees for over three decades.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "Equity must not be a casualty in the hands of executive convenience and the Article 14 of Constitution of India not only demands equality before law but also fairness in state action and this fairness, in its simplest form, demands that those who have given a lifetime to public service not be left stranded in their twilight years with nothing but hope."
The Court said it "cannot ignore the fact that the record reveals that the petitioners have been continuously engaged as daily wage workers with the BBMB since as early as 1989."
The judge further said, "Through sun and storm, they have discharged duties akin to those of permanent employees, these duties being regular in nature, continuous in execution, and essential to the functioning of the institution."
"The law must see through the veil of nomenclature and acknowledge the substance of the relationship and to call such service “casual” is not only factually untenable but morally unjust," it added.
Justice Moudgil highlighted, that Public employment, when prolonged and uninterrupted, must be met with the fairness of due recognition. "These petitioners have not merely worked but have endured and continue to receive meagre wages after decades of service. This is a stark reminder of the systemic inequity that daily wage workers suffer often under the garb of technicalities and institutional inaction."
The judge opined that the respondent's rejection of their claims, through the impugned order, ignores the humane jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein, it held that, "guarding against indiscriminate regularization the apex court made a solemn exception for those who have served the State continuously for over ten years without break in an attempt to protect them from the injustice of discrimination."
In the light of the above, the plea was allowed.
Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate for the respondents
Title: HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS v. BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 390