105+206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27545-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Parveen ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Dharambir Bhargav, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Kaushal, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 10.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

CM-2811-CWP-2026 The present application has been filed under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for placing on record the affidavit of Maninder Singh, Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Division, Jalandhar, Punjab, in compliance with the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by this Court.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the affidavit of Maninder Singh, Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Division, Jalandhar, Punjab, in compliance with the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by this Court is taken on record.

CWP-27545-2017

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the decision dated 07.08.2017 (Annexure P-12). Further, for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization of her services.

2. On 09.01.2026, the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 18.02.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in April, 2006 and has been working in the respondent-Board for almost 10 years. He further submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner has remained satisfactory throughout her service. Moreover, perennial work is being extracted from the petitioner. Thus, her service deserves to be regularized.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent-Board through an outsourcing service i.e. through a contractor. However, he seeks a short accommodation to have complete instructions and apprise this Court whether the petitioner is working as a Sweeper in the respondent Board as a part time or a full time employee.

On this request, adjourned to 04.02.2026.

To be taken up immediately after the urgent list.”

3. In compliance thereof, affidavit of Sh. Maninder Singh, Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Division, Jalandhar, Punjab, has filed and learned counsel fore respondents No.3 to 10 submits that the petitioner was engaged purely through an outsourcing agency and works as a part time Sweeper for three and a half hours per day only. The petitioner is not a full time employee and has no direct appointment with the department. He further relies upon the letter dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure R-3/1).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record with their able assistance, this issue is no longer res integra .

5. Moreover, a Two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ilmo Devi 2021(4) SCT 312 speaking through Justice M.R. Shah has held as follows with regards to the regularization of part-time Sweepers who were working for less than five hours a day:

“8.6 In the case of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra) in paragraph

12, it is observed and held as under:-

12. We may at the outset refer to the following wellsettled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:

(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Cour