IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27704-2025 DECIDED ON:17.09.2025 INDERJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate for respondents ****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certioari to set aside the action of the respondents whereby his services were dispensed with and another contractual employee was engaged in his place. The further relief claimed is for his reinstatement on the post of Cleaner-cum- Sweeper along with consequential benefits of continuity in service and full back wages.

2. Brief Facts The petitioner was engaged on 05.04.2012 as a Cleaner-cum-

Sweeper on contractual basis with the respondent authorities and continued to work till 2019. According to him, at the time of engagement, there was an assurance that his services would be regularized after a few years, though no written appointment letter was ever issued. The petitioner was paid regularly during his tenure and performed his duties without any complaint. In 2019, his services were discontinued and another contractual employee was engaged in his place. The petitioner made representations for his reinstatement and regularization but no action was taken. Aggrieved, he has approached this Court in August, 2025, with the present petition.

3. Contentions On behalf of Petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been working with the respondents since 05.04.2012 on the post of Cleaner- cum-Sweeper and had continuously discharged his duties till the year 2019, without any complaint or break in service. It is urged that the respondents had assured the petitioner that his services would be regularized after a few years, yet instead of considering him for regular absorption, they chose to terminate his services arbitrarily and replaced him with another contractual employee, which is impermissible in law.

Counsel further submits that the law is well settled by the Supreme Court as well as this Court that one contractual employee cannot be substituted by another contractual employee merely to deny the former the benefit of regularization, placing reliance on the supreme court judgement in “Hargurpartap Singh vs State Of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 292”

It is also contended that the petitioner, having worked for more than five years with the respondents, had acquired a legitimate expectation of continuity in service and of being considered for regular appointment against available vacancies and abruptly discontinuing petitioner’s services is not only arbitrary but unjust.

On behalf of Respondents Learned counsel for the respondent submits at the very outset that the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The petitioner’s services were discontinued in 2019, yet he has approached this Court only in August, 2025, after an inordinate lapse of more than six years. Such stale claims cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

It is further argued that after the petitioner’s disengagement, the respondents have already engaged another person on contractual basis, thereby creating third party rights. Any direction for reinstatement now would unsettle such rights and cause serious administrative prejudice.

On merits, counsel submits that the petitioner was engaged purely on a contractual basis, without any selection process, no appointment letter was ever issued and there was no promise of regularization. The claim of “assurance” is vague and unsubstantiated. Moreover, contractual or temporary employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.

Contradicting the reliance placed by the petitioner on Hargurpartap Singh’s case(supra), he submits that the judgment was rendered in different factual circumstances where the petitioners had ap