The State as a constitutional employer cannot deny regularization to long-term ad-hoc employees on grounds of lack of sanctioned posts or qualifications when the nature of work is perennial and similarly situated juniors have already been regularized, as such practice violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of both of the above-mentioned writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-12058-2026.

2. The instant 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 seeking quashing of impugned speaking order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) whereby the claim of petitioner seeking regularization of his services against a suitable Group D post w.e.f. the date of regularization of his juniors has been rejected which is contrary to the law laid down in judgment passed by a Division Bench of this court in LPA-1397-2023, titled State of Haryana and others Versus Raj Rani (Annexure P-10). Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioner against a suitable Group D post w.e.f. date of regularization of his juniors with all consequential benefits.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially engaged as a part-time Sweeper in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) on 28.04.1987 and has been rendering continuous service for the last about 39 years. It is submitted that a number of employees similarly situated to the petitioner have been regularized and even several juniors to the petitioner, namely Beer Singh, Anand and Trepan Singh, have been granted the benefit of regularization, thereby ignoring the seniority of the petitioner (Annexure P-5).

3.1 It is further contended that one similarly situated employee, namely Satya Dev, had approached this Court by filing CWP No.13529 of 1999 seeking regularization, which was allowed vide judgment dated 08.12.2000 (Annexure P-1). Following the said judgment, the petitioner also filed CWP No.5129 of 2002, which was disposed of on 01.04.2002 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-2). However, the claim of the petitioner for regularization came to be rejected vide order dated 29.03.2004 (Annexure P-4) and again vide a speaking order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) on the grounds of non-availability of sanctioned posts and lack of requisite qualifications.

3.2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1397 of 2023 and connected matters, titled State of Haryana and others versus Raj Rani, decided on 07.05.2024 (Annexure P-10), wherein, while relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Nihal Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others, (2013) 14 SCC 65, it has been held that the benefit of regularization cannot be denied on the ground of absence of sanctioned posts or lack of qualifications, particularly when similarly situated employees have already been extended such benefit.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents reiterates the grounds as set forth in the impugned order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P-9) and submits that the petitioner does not fulfil the essential qualifications prescribed for the post against which he seeks regularization. It is further contended that there are no sanctioned posts available for accommodating the petitioner and, therefore, no right to regularization accrues in his favour.

OBSERVATION