IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-200-2013 DECIDED ON: 19.09.2025 RAM KUMAR .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl. AG Haryana SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-7) alleging the same to be discriminatory, arbitrary and against the rules of natural justice.

2. The petitioner has sought regularization as per the policy of 1996 from the date his juniors were to be put on regular establishment alongwith all consequential benefits with interest for the delayed period.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage Chokidar on 01.05.1978 with the respondent/ department and has been continuously serving across various divisions. The details of such engagement and service have been set out in tabulated form in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, which merit consideration and are reproduced hereinbelow:

Sr. No. Name of Officer From To

1. Provisional Division No.101.05.1978 28.02.1982 PWD B&R Kurukshetra. (Pehowa Sub Division Pehowa)

2. Mandi Division B&R Panipat 01.05.1982 31.10.1982 3. Provisional Division No.1,01.11.1982 31.05.1985 Panipat

4. Provisional Division Kaithal.01.06.1985 28.02.1988 (Rajound Sub Division Rajound)

5. World Bank Division Murthal 01.03.1988 30.06.1990

4. Thereafter the petitioner worked under the under the control of XEN, Provisional Division No.1 since 01.06.1992 with the following sub-divisions:-

i) Provisional Sub-Division No.III Panipat from 6/92 to 6/93 ii) Provisional Sub-division No.2 Samalkha from 7/93 to 7/94. Thereafter the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with by the respondent without any reason.

5. On dispensation of his services on 07.07.1994 a demand notice was served on 07.12.1996 alongwith a claim statement. The Labour Court, after adjudication, passed an award dated 23.02.2001 in favour of the petitioner, setting aside the termination on the ground that it was illegal and in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court further directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. the date of the demand notice, i.e., 07.12.1996.

6. The State approached this High Court vide Civil Writ Petition No.9996 of 2001.

7. It is on the basis of the aforementioned factual background that the present petition was argued. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner unfortunately passed away on 09.05.2020. Pursuant to his demise, his legal heirs namely, Dhanpati (widow of Ram Kumar), Dinesh Kumar (son), and Renu (daughter), were brought on record vide order dated 02.09.2022.

8. Heard.

9. In support of the proposition that the petitioner-workman, despite his demise and the fact that he had not been regularized in service during his lifetime, was still entitled to the reliefs claimed, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 10017 of 2011, titled “Khajjan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others.” In the said case, it was held that the benefit of continuity in service must relate back to the date of the original appointment, and any break in service could not be used by the respondents to the prejudice of the workman so as to deny the benefits that would have otherwise accrued to him due to the wrongful termination. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“19. Labour and industrial rights deserve to be examined on both constitutional principles and industrial law precepts preserved by the special law of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the foremost question posed in (iv) above has to be answered in the first instance w