IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 CM-15029-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-27344-2013(O&M)

Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 Hargopal and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate and Mr. Gulraz S. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.3-PHSC.

***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J. (ORAL)

CM-15029-CWP-2025 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for fixing an early and actual date of hearing in the main case.

The main case is already listed at Sr. No.1344 on regular board of this Court, therefore, the instant application is allowed and the main case is taken up today itself.

CWP-27344-2013

1. The present petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-

12) whereby the claim of the petitioners for regularization was rejected. Further, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of instructions dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure P-10), at par with those similarly placed counterparts, and to grant all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation and the arrears thereof along with interest @ 12% p.a.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners were recruited as Computer Operators with the respondent- Corporation, in pursuance of advertisements (Annexure P-1 colly) issued in various newspapers. The petitioners were appointed, in the years 2001-2005 (Annexure P-2), on contractual basis and their tenure was extended from time to time. He submits that the nature of the duties discharged by the petitioners is perennial in nature and thus, they deserve to be regularized. Further, certain similarly situated counterparts of the petitioners have already been regularized vide order 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-8). However, instead of extending the same benefit to the petitioners, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-12) rejecting their claim for regularization. The respondents have reasoned that the petitioners are not covered by instructions dated 18.03.2011 and 17.11.2011 as they were appointed on contract basis and not against any sanctioned post. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by judgments passed by this Court Kartar Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab and another in CWP-5307-2025, decided on 06.02.2026 and Bhupesh Kumar and others Vs. Punjab Health System Corporation and another in CWP-24673-2025, decided on 12.02.2026.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert that the ratio laid down in Kartar Singh(supra) and Bhupesh Kumar(supra) rendered in favour of co-employees of the petitioners or distinguish the case of the petitioners from them.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, it transpires that the petitioners had joined the service as Computer Operators with the respondent-Corporation between the years 2001 to 2005, on a contractual basis. However, owing to the perennial nature of their work, their contracts were extended from time to time. Admittedly, their similarly situated counterparts have already been granted the benefit of regularization vide order 23.12.2011 (Annexure P-8) while the claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-12).

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the State, being a model employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant time period. Such an approach would be violative of fundamental rights of the