Right Of Regularisation Survives After Employee's Death If He Passes Away After Becoming Eligible: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Observing that "justice, even if delayed, must be seen to repair what was broken not only in legality, but in principle," the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the right to regularisation of service, once accrued, does not extinguish upon an employee's death.

The Court observed that if an employee passes away after becoming eligible for regularisation, the benefit must be deemed to have vested and survives through their legal heirs.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that, "Court cannot allow the architecture of justice to be subverted by procedural rigidity. The right to regularization, when accrued, travels with the person and in their absence, survives through their legal representatives. The State, as a model employer, is bound to uphold not merely the letter of the contract, but the spirit of fairness, equality, and compassion."

The Court further added that, it recognises the hardship faced by the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner, who have been left to pursue a right that was long overdue due to protracted litigation and the petitioner's untimely death." It is only just and equitable that the vested right in favor of the petitioner now be acknowledged and honored in favor of his heirs."

The deceased was employed as a Chowkidar in 1978 as a daily wager under Haryana Government and continued working until 1994. During his service, he was illegally terminated; however, the Labour Court directed his reinstatement.

The State authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking regularisation. The same was challenged in the High Court and during its pendency, the employee passed away.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected State's argument that the petitioner has since deceased and is no more in existence cannot be regularised.

Justice Moudgil opined that the argument that case for regularization cannot be considered at this stage, would not hold good for the reason that the State had already adjudicated upon the petitioner's claim and rejected the same.

"The said rejection was immediately challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which was filed during his lifetime. Therefore, the cause of action had already crystallized, and the petitioner's right to relief survives even after his demise and in case the present writ petition is accepted and the arguments raised get merit in favour of the consequential relief would necessarily relate back to the date from which the petitioner was legally entitled to regularization," it added.

The bench noted that at that time, he was actively serving as a daily wager and pursuing his rightful claim for regularization, particularly on the ground that his juniors namely Jagat Singh, Dharam Singh, Zile Singh, and Raju were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under the regularization policy framed by the State of Haryana in 1996.

Regularisation Not An Act Of Grace But Matter Of Right

The Court said that, this case is a solemn reminder that the law, while clothed in the formalities of procedure, must never lose sight of its humane purpose. The petitioner appears before us not in search of charity, but in pursuit of justice that ought to have been served during her husband's lifetime.

"She seeks recognition not just of the service rendered by her late husband, but of the dignity that every employee is entitled to under our constitutional scheme," it added.

The judge highlighted that the employee had rendered long years of continuous, dedicated service. He had crossed the threshold where temporariness loses its meaning, and regularization becomes not an act of grace, but a matter of right.

In the light of the above, the Court held that the deceased employee shall be deemed to have been regularised from the date on which he became eligible for such benefit. All consequential entitlements monetary and otherwise shall accordingly be made over to the legal heirs, who today stand not merely as claimants to financial dues, but as representatives of a moral wrong seeking redress.

Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana

Title: RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 405

Click here to read order