IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3569-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 06.02.2026 Raj Kumar and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. R.P.S. Jammu, Advocate with Mr. Jasbir Singh Thind, Advocate and Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.

Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as they were appointed on 02.11.2011 and 04.11.2011, respectively and are working regularly on contractual appointment and the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-10146-2023, titled as Manjeet Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.08.2025, in which the services of similarly situated employees were regularized. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to count the past service and to grant other benefits as per the judgment passed by this Court in Harbans Lal v. State of Punjab, passed in CWP No.2371 of 2010 and State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan, passed in LPA No.1892 of 2019

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2011 on contractual basis. The petitioners have been continuously working since the date of their appointment and perennial work is being extracted from the petitioners at par with their regular counterparts. The petitioners are neither engaged as a part-time workers nor as a casual labourers. The petitioners’ continuous engagement on contract basis is violative of the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, Jaggo v. Union of India and others 2025 AIR SC 296, Vinod Kumar and others v. Union of India (2024) 1 SCR 1230 and Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, as well as the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-35744-2025 titled as Anoop Singh vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 23.12.2025 which recognizes the right of long-serving contractual employees to be considered for regularization, however, the respondents have failed to take any decision in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in identical circumstance, the employees were directed to be regularized by this Court in Manjeet Singh’s case (supra)

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that he would be satisfied if the legal notice dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner.

3. Learned State counsel, appearing on advance notice, submits that he has no objection, in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2 for time-bound consideration and decision of the legal notice dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioners by passing a speaking order.

3.1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the petitioners are not entitled to be regularized as they are outsourced employees engaged through a contractor. However, she could not controvert the fact that the issue with regard to outsource employees stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh’s case (supra)

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The issue involved in the present writ petition has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh’s case (supra). The operative part of the said judgment, reads as follows:-

“11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unli