HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ****

Ranjit Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners VS.

Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents ****

1. Judgment reserved on 08.01.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 16.02.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 19.02.2026

4. Whether operative or full judgment Full 5. Delay in pronouncement of full judgment and reasons, if any NA ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate and Ms. Gauri Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. KK Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned decision dated 01.02.2017 (Annexure P1) rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularization, who are working as casual workers in the Punjab Region Office of FCI since 1986-87. A further direction is sought to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 06.11.1995 or the date of DOPT instructions dated 10.09.1993 along with all consequential benefits.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been continuously engaged as casual workers with the respondent-Corporation in Punjab Region since 1986-87 and had been performing duties of a permanent and perennial nature identical to those Category-IV employees already engaged on regular basis and without any adverse record. He submits that despite the assurance given before this Court in CWP-14044-1992 (Annexure P3) to absorb the petitioners and place them in a regular pay scale, the respondents have neither framed nor implemented any fair regularisation policy for these long-serving workers, compelling them to remain in a precarious casual status for nearly four decades, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

(3). It is further asserted that as per the instructions issued by the Govt. on grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual labour (including OM dated 10.09.1993 and later circulars), the casual/temporary-status workers who have completed the required length of service would be considered for regularisation and that a substantial share of Group-D vacancies in the same office is to be earmarked for such workers, however, the respondents have chosen to ignore these binding executive instructions and excluded the petitioners from consideration against vacancies in the very establishment where they have worked for decades which is ex facie arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the Corporation has already treated the petitioners as part of the regular establishment by placing them in a pay scale, deducting CPF and extending pensionary benefits akin to regular Category-IV staff. He further submits that the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination vis-à-vis similarly situated casual workers in other Regions of FCI, especially Delhi Region, where many casual workers have already been regularised.

(4). On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, on the basis of the written statement dated 20.09.2019, submits that the relief of regularisation now claimed by the petitioners is barred by their own conscious and informed undertakings furnished under the Temporary Status Scheme dated 24.10.2016, which was duly approved by the Board of Directors in its 373^rd meeting wherein it was agreed by the petitioner that they will not claim regularisation or arrears for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and as such, having taken advantage of the scheme, they are estopped in law from resiling from the undertakings or approbating and reprobating in respect of the same policy decision.

(5). Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot demand appointment by way of absorption against the advertised Watchman posts in substitution of the prescribed recruitment process, inasmuch as there c