IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 CWP-17035 of 2013(O&M)

Date of Decision: October 29, 2025 Ram Asra .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aman Sharma and Mr. Chirag Soni, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner, who is working for the last 19 years with the respondents as daily wager employee. Further, praying for directing the respondents that during the pendency of the writ petition, he be paid the equal pay with all benefits being paid/granted to regular employees for equal work since the day petitioner was with the respondents and also staying the termination of the service of petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner was initially appointed as Chowkidar/Watchmen on daily wage basis on 06.12.1994 in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, Ropar. He had been continuously performing duties since 1994 which fortifies the claim of the petitioner for regularization. He further contends that petitioner is entitled to be regularized in terms of the regularization policy/instructions dated 23.01.2001 issued by Government of Punjab, which provides for regularization on completion of 3 years of service and it was further provided that those daily wagers and others category of workers who had completed three years of service were to be regularization and in case the services of such employees is not required, their services may be terminated by following the due process of law. The services of the petitioner was not dispensed with in terms of the policy which clearly fortifies his case, as he has rendered continuous service which is perennial in nature.

3. The claim of the petitioner is also required to be considered for regularization in terms of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi, 2006(3) SLR 1, as petitioner has rendered more than 10 years of service. After passing of the judgment in Uma Devi’s case (supra) another instructions dated 15.12.2006 was passed, pursuant to which a large number of employees of the Corporation stand regularized. Further an identical issue in terms of the applicable regularization policy was raised before this Court in CWP-1933-2014, Kanta Rani Versus State of Punjab and others, decided on 28.10.2014, wherein this Court has ordered the services of the petitioner therein to be regularized in terms of instructions/policy of 1999 and 2001.

4. Learned counsel placed further reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA Nos. 95 of 2019 and other connected matters (O&M) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Surinder Singh and others, decided on 23.12.2022 and submits that even the part-time employees working for few hours in a day have been regularized in terms of policy of 1999 and the respondent- Corporation has not controverted the fact that in any manner they have filled 25% vacancies in terms of policy of 1999. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihal Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2013(14) SCC 65 has authoritatively held that employer has not carried out the exercise in compliance of the directions in Uma Devi’s case (supra)and the claim of such employees for regularization cannot be denied. Further the petitioner fulfils the eligibility set out in every policy, however, in spite of serving the respondent-Corporation since 1994, the services of petitioner was not regularized. Similarly situated employees of the petitioners have approached this Court in CWP-12211-2021, Hans Raj and others Versus Pepsu Road Transport