208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.11.2025 Balwan Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. B.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and to pay all consequential benefits.

2. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner joined in the respondent-Department as Safai Karamchari in the year 1985 on daily wages. The Haryana Government formulated a policy dated 27.05.1993 (Annexure P-1) for regularization of services of casual/daily wagers who had completed 05 years of continuous service, as on 31.03.1993 had completed 240 days of service in each year. Thereafter, the Haryana Government formulated another policy dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure P-2) for the regularization of services for casual/daily wagers who had completed 05 years of service, as on 31.01.1996 and should have completed 240 days of service in each year. The Haryana Government had further amended the policy vide letter dated 18.03.1996 (Annexure P-3) in which the requirement of 05 years of service was reduced to 03 years. It is further mentioned that Haryana Government formulated yet another policy for regularization on 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-4). Having completed more than 05 years of service, the petitioner sought regularization but no action was taken, causing him to move a representation dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure P-6) before the respondents but in vain.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been working continuously since the year 1985 with no break in his service and if there is any break, it is due to the fault of the respondents as the petitioner has always been willing to work. Further, similarly situated employees as the petitioner, namely, Jai Bhagwan, Inder and Bhagwan, have been regularized but the same benefit has been arbitrarily denied to the petitioner. The petitioner is squarely covered by the policy and the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner joined the respondent-Department in the year 1987 on part time basis and worked for only four hours a day, however, the petitioner has wrongly stated that he was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1985. It is further contended that Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, H.S.E.B., Panipat vide sanction letter dated 16.06.1998 (Annexure R-1) accorded engagement of the petitioner as a part time Mali/Sweeper and Sewerman at 33 KV Sub Station, Noultha as per DC rates for the period from 02.06.1998 to 29.08.1998. Further, the Government of Haryana framed various policies for regularization of daily wages employees and as per the policy dated 01.10.2003, the eligibility condition for regularization of a daily wage employee was completion of three years in a Group ‘D’ post on 30.09.2003. The policies for regularization are not applicable in the case of the petitioner as he was not working on daily wage basis as a Safai Karamchari, as claimed, but was appointed as a part time Sweeper on 04.07.1987 only to work for four hours in one day. He further submits that the petitioner himself discontinued his service and subsequently, filed a CWP No.12145 of 2005 titled as ‘Balwan Singh Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others’, wherein, he prayed for quashing of order dated 21.01.2004 as well as the verbal terminati