Employees Can't Be Denied Right To Regularisation Of Service Merely Because They Were Working As Daily Wagers: P&H High Court

Employees cannot be denied the right to regularisation of service merely because they were engaged as daily wagers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held.

Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Alok Jain said, "Once the appellants have not disputed the length of service of the respondents (writ petitioners), they cannot deny their legal right for being considered or entitled to regularization merely on the ground that they have been working as such on daily wages. Grant of any indulgence on such count would amount to allowing the appellants to take benefit of their dominion."

Speaking for the bench Justice Singh said, even if the employees had worked on daily wages, the fact remains that they had rendered their services for the cause of the appellants and gave their "prime years" in discharge of such duties.

"Obviously they continued working as such, because the duties/works assigned to them were the requirements of the appellants. The appellants cannot be allowed to play according to their convenience. On the one hand, they have availed the services of the respondents (writ petitioners) and on the other, they are denying them the benefit of regularization, merely on the ground that the respondents (writ petitioners) were working as daily wages," the bench added.

The Court hearing a batch 136 intra Court appeals arising out of a common order whereby the single judge had passed certain directions including that the petitioners who had completed service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006, either at present are in service or have already retired, are entitled to regular post and they cannot be denied regularization on the ground of lack of sanctioned post or minimum education qualification.

The single judge had also said that the petitioners who did not complete service of 10 years by the end of December' 2006 and during the pendency of present litigation have superannuated or passed away would be entitled to minimum of pay scale plus dearness allowance and grade pay from the date of completing service of 10 years till the date of their retirement or death. 

Counsel appearing for State Authorities argued that while passing the impugned judgment, the Single Judge has lost sight of the settled judicial pronouncements that no person can be regularized in the absence of any sanctioned post.

It was argued that in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1], it has been held that only those employees, who were appointed against sanctioned posts, having minimum educational qualification, could be considered for regularization.

It is was further argued that the respondents (employees) are working on daily wages and no policy has been framed by the Government/State as regards the regularization of the services of such daily wagers. 

Rejecting the submissions, the division bench said that the plea of the appellants that the respondents (writ petitioners) were appointed as daily wages, is not tenable for the reason that daily wagers are only employed as a stop gap arrangements for a limited period but in the instant case, the employees have either worked or been working for more than three decades and therefore, they cannot be termed to be daily wagers.

The Court pointed that it is not the case of the appellants that they have not considered the cases of the other similarly situated employees under different policies from time to time.

"That being the position, the appellants cannot be heard saying that the respondents (writ petitioners) cannot be considered for regularization or they are not entitled to such benefit for want of sanctioned posts," it added.

The Court observed that it is settled in service jurisprudence that once an employee has worked for a considerable long period, his case is to be considered for regularization by the State by framing appropriate policy in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). The only caveat which bars such regularization is that the appointment to such posts must not be a back door entry and rather, the same should be after following the due procedure of law as provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It Observed that "an employee, who has rendered more than 30 years service under the State, cannot be denied benefit of regularization on the ground of lack of requisite/minimum qualification."

However the bench said, no doubt the parameter of requisite educational qualification is one of the conditions of the appointment to a particular post, but when an employee appointed against such posts has been working for more than three decades, denying him the benefit of regularization on the ground of not possessing minimum educational qualification would be totally iniquitous.

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed the plea.

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab,

and Mr. Kuljit Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the appellant(s).

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the appellants (in LPA Nos.14, 19, 34 128 & 556 of 2025).

Mr. Pawan Kumar Mutneja, Senior Advocate, with Mr. V.S. Mahal, Advocate;

Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate and Mr. Vishesh Bhatia, Advocate for respondent(s) (in LPA-2032, 2408, 2449, 2336, 2150, 2628, 2239, 2986, 2593, 2364, 2298, 2480, 2248, 2088 of 2024).

Mr. Baldev Singh Sodhi, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2401, 2780, 2363, 2409, 2032 of 2024 and LPA 86 & 337 of 2025).

Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2577-2024).

Mr. Harbans Lal Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate

for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2073-2024).

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the respondent(s)(in LPA 37 & 128 of 2023).

Mr. Vicky Arora, Advocate for Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2274 of 2024).

Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for Ms. Alisha Arora, Advocate

for the respondent(s) (in LPA-2801-2024 & 301-2025). Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocatem for appellant(s) (in LPA-2555-2024) and for respondent (s) (in LPA-14, 19 & 34 of 2025).

Mr. Ashu Rana, Advocate for respondent(s) (in LPA-2179-2024).

Title: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. SARWAN RAM AND OTHERS