'Army Authorities Misrepresented Facts Before Court': P&H HC Objects To Denial Of Regularisation To Personnel Serving For Over 30 Yrs

In a scathing judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the Army authorities for presenting a “sorry state of affairs” by "manipulating facts" to deny regularisation benefits to employees who had rendered over three decades of service.

The Union Government claimed that the post for which regularisation was sought was abolished at the time when the CAT has directed for the same, however the same was not found to be true by the Court.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri said, "It is sorry state of affairs that Army authorities are before this Court so as to deny the benefit of regularization of service to the employees, who have worked with them for a period of more than three decades and that too on the basis of the incorrect facts and by manipulating the facts, not only before the Tribunal but before this Court as well."

The Court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by the Union Of India (UOI), challenging the order passed by the CAT to give benefit of regularisation to the employees working with the Military Farms for over thirty years.

The respondents-employees approached the Tribunal in the year 1998 claiming the benefit of regularization of their services, which benefit was granted by the Tribunal in1999 by putting certain conditions upon the petitioners-UOI that once, an employee has worked for a period of more than 10 years, the said employee should be considered for regularization of his/her services without insisting upon as to whether the name of such employee was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not. The Union refused to grant the benefit, hence the execution of the order was filed in 2019, the Tribunal directed to comply the same.

After hearing the submissions, the division bench said that the said fact has been conceded by the counsel for the petitioners-UOI keeping in view the order passed by the competent Court of law 26 years ago, "rejecting the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services on the same ground, amounts to contempt of Court." 

It noted that counsel for the petitioners-UOI has not been able to show that once, the competent Court of law has directed the petitioners- UOI as far as back in the year 1999 to consider the claim for regularization of the services of the respondents without insisting upon as to whether the name of employees, who are seeking regularization, was sponsored by Employment Exchange or not then why, the said ground has been taken by the petitioners-UOI while rejecting the claim of the respondents in an order passed in June, 2019.

"This clearly shows that the petitioners- UOI were to reject the claim of the respondents for regularization irrespective of the fact as to whether the employee concerned was entitled for the benefit of regularization or not," it added

Speaking for the bench Justice Sethi said, this shows the mind set of the petitioners-UOI while dealing with the direction given by the competent Court of law for considering the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services, "who have served them for a period of more than 30 years."

Qua the reason given by the UOI that the 64 posts against which the respondents were claiming regularization had been abolished in the year 2018 and therefore, there was no post available to regularize their services, the bench noticed that on being asked as to on which date the posts were abolished, the counsel for the UOI stated that the said 64 posts were abolished on 24.09.2018.

"In case, the said fact is correct then why the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the direction was given vide order dated 18.02.2019...that as the 64 posts have been abolished and the claim of the respondents herein for regularization of their services against those 64 posts cannot be considered," said the Court.

Further, even if, such directions were given by the Tribunal, the Court questioned that then why the UOI did not challenge the said order dated ) passed by the Tribunal before the competent Court of law that the direction given by the Tribunal for considering the claim of respondents for regularization of their services against 64 posts is incorrect as no post exists on the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal on 18.02.2019 against which the services of the respondents could be regularized.

"Rather the said order was accepted by the petitioners-UOI and consideration was given which shows that the petitioners-UOI intended to hoodwink the Court as the endeavour of the petitioners-UOI was only to get the cases disposed of so as to reject the claim of the respondents at later point of time," it noted.

"UOI is misrepresenting the facts before this Court as well," the Court remarked.

It noted in the Union's plea, decision qua abolition of 1399 vacant posts in the Defence Civilian in Military Farms was taken only on 10.08.2020 i.e. after the passing of the order dated 18.02.2019 by the Tribunal to consider the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services.

Counsel for the UOI has not been able to rebut that in case, the posts were actually abolished on 10.08.2020 then how come in June 2019, the petitioners-UOI declined the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services on the ground that 64 posts do not exist as the same have already been abolished, it added.

"This shows that the claim of the respondents was rejected by the petitioners-UOI on the basis of incorrect facts, which factual position was presented before the Tribunal in the execution petition, which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 12.03.2025...that the consideration to the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services should be given in letter and spirit on the basis of the facts which existed as on 18.02.2019 when the order...was passed by the Tribunal," said the bench.

By applying the settled principle of law that in case of the respondent-employees herein, as they worked for more than 10 years with the petitioners on work-charged basis but have not been given the benefit of regularization of their services, the bench added.

The Court said, "Respondents are working with petitioners-UOI from the year 1988 onwards till the year 2020 hence, they have 32 years of service to their credit. Not only this, the petitioners-UOI had 64 posts for regularising the services of the respondents on the date direction was issued to consider their claim for regionalization so that in case, one Military farm is closed, they can be adjusted in another Military farm on the same post and they are not left without job despite rendering 32 years of service."

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others decided [Civil Appeal No.6798-2019 ] wherein it held that inspite of working for 30-40 years, if the services of the employees have not been regularized and they have attained the age of superannuation then, keeping in view the decision in Uma Devi decision, the services of such employees should be regularized. The Supreme Court directed that such employees should be treated regular on the date of their superannuation so that they can receive pension as if they are retired from the regular establishment.

In the light of the above Union Government's plea was dismissed.

Title: Union of India and others v. Sher Singh and another

Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI.

Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kaul, Advocate & Mr. K. Vinay, Advocate for private respondents in CWPs-22671,22849,22660,22666,22676,22679,22682 22683,22686,22695 & 22650 of 2025

Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate (joined through V.C.) for private respondents in remaining writ petitions.

Click here to read/download the order