IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . . Appellants Vs.

JITENDER KUMAR . . . . Respondent ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ****

Present: Mr. Saurabh Mohanta, DAG, Haryana for the appellants.

****

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. This appeal assails the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby it decided the writ petition, preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) in 2004, claiming regularization on the basis of policy dated 01.10.2003. The learned Single Judge proceeded to take into consideration the view expressed by this Court in Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CWP-2158-2020, for the purpose of directing regularization of the writ petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed in the case of Ashish Sharma (supra) is under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relation to LPAs decided by this Court subsequently. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

3. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the facts of the present case. We find that it is the case of the respondent that he was working as a Clerk on daily wage basis since 26.07.2000, and the State had initiated a policy on 01.10.2003 granting regularization to persons who were working on daily wage basis and had completed three years of service as on the date of publication of the policy.

4. Admittedly, the respondent had completed three years of service on the date when the policy was introduced, i.e. 01.10.2003. The three years of service was on the post of Clerk. He, therefore, claimed regularization based on parity, independent of the judgment passed in Ashish Sharma (supra). If we examine the case of the respondent, we find that in terms of the judgments passed from time to time by the Supreme Court, lead case being Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2024 INSC 1034, even if the appellants’ case is that he was working against an unsanctioned post, he would be entitled to regularization as it is not the case of the State that his services had been discontinued since 2000.

5. Now after almost more than 25 years, it is expected from the State to take steps and pass orders of regularization in terms of the policy dated 01.10.2003, as well as in view of the judgment passed in the case of Jaggo (supra), wherein the Supreme Court held as under:

“26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)

sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engag