Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Regularization of Long-Serving Daily Wagers, Rooted in Rajdharma and Uma Devi Principles

Introduction

In a landmark ruling that underscores the ethical foundations of Indian constitutionalism, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the regularization of services for numerous daily wage workers employed by the Haryana government. Delivered by Justice Sandeep Moudgil on December 31, 2025, the judgment in a batch of writ petitions, led by CWP-31304-2025 titled Joginder Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others , emphasizes that a welfare state cannot perpetually exploit workers by extracting their labor while denying them job security. Drawing on the civilizational concept of Rajdharma —governance guided by justice, fairness, and compassion—the court held that long-serving daily wagers, who have rendered uninterrupted service for decades, must be considered for regularization under applicable policies or as a one-time measure per Supreme Court precedents like State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. This decision governs over 40 connected petitions involving petitioners such as Bharpal, Satyawan, and others, all seeking relief from the State of Haryana and its departments after years of unaddressed representations. The ruling not only rectifies individual grievances but also critiques systemic exploitation in public employment, reinforcing Articles 14 (equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution.

The court's intervention comes amid repeated pleas from these workers, many engaged since the 1990s as pump operators, laborers, and support staff in essential public services. By piercing the veil of "contractual" labels, the judgment mandates regularization within eight weeks, along with consequential benefits like pay fixation, arrears, and 6% interest, signaling a broader call for humane state action in labor relations.

Case Background

The instant batch of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution arises from the prolonged engagement of petitioners as daily wage or casual workers in various Haryana government departments, primarily in irrigation, public works, and related sectors. Taking facts from the lead case of Joginder Singh (CWP-31304-2025), the petitioner was initially engaged in 1994 as a Water Pump Operator/Tube-well Pump Operator. Despite satisfactory performance and continuous service spanning nearly three decades, his role remained on a daily wage basis through muster rolls, without progression to regular employment.

The Haryana government has periodically issued regularization policies to address such engagements, recognizing the need to formalize long-term temporary hires. Key policies include those dated May 27, 1993; March 7, 1996; March 18, 1996; October 1, 2003 (amended February 10, 2004); and June 18, 2014. These schemes typically require criteria such as minimum service length (e.g., 5-10 years continuous work), engagement against sanctioned vacant posts, requisite qualifications (like matriculation for technical roles), and at least 240 working days per year. Eligibility cut-off dates, such as September 30, 2003, for the 2003 policy, aimed to provide a pathway for workers who had been contributing to perennial departmental functions.

However, while some similarly situated employees—often junior to the petitioners—were regularized under these policies, the petitioners' claims were repeatedly overlooked. For instance, Joginder Singh submitted a representation on September 19, 2025, seeking consideration under the 2003 policy, but received no response. This pattern of inaction extended across connected cases, involving petitioners like Usha Devi (CWP-12395-2025), Ramphal (CWP-26966-2025), and Jeevani Devi (CWP-32355-2019), many of whom had served over 20-30 years in roles essential to public infrastructure, such as water supply and maintenance.

The legal disputes trace back to the petitioners' initial engagements in the mid-1990s, escalating after failed internal representations and selective departmental decisions favoring others. By 2025, with petitions filed between 2018 and 2025, the core questions emerged: Does prolonged daily wage service against sanctioned functions entitle workers to regularization consideration? And does the state's refusal, despite fulfilling eligibility under policies like the 2003 scheme, amount to arbitrary action violative of constitutional equality? The timeline highlights a systemic issue—policies promised relief, but administrative inertia left hundreds in limbo, compelling judicial recourse after decades of service.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by a battery of advocates including Senior Advocates Ravinder Malik and Vikas Chatrath, mounted a robust case centered on equity, continuity, and constitutional rights. They argued that each petitioner had rendered long, uninterrupted service—often exceeding 10-30 years—in perennial roles critical to departmental operations, such as pump operation and labor support. Counsel emphasized fulfillment of policy criteria: engagement before cut-off dates (e.g., pre-2003 for the October 2003 policy), satisfactory conduct, and availability of sanctioned posts. They contended that the work was not casual or project-based but ongoing, distinguishing it from true temporary hires.

Relying on precedents like Khajjan Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 1 SCT 604 and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034), petitioners asserted a legitimate expectation of regularization, decrying the state's arbitrariness in regularizing juniors while ignoring seniors. They highlighted the 2003 policy's applicability, noting petitioners' pre-September 30, 2003, engagements and technical qualifications where required. The inaction on representations, they argued, violated natural justice and perpetuated inequality under Articles 14 and 16. Factual points included muster roll records showing consistent work, despite intermittent notations, and the departmental benefit derived from their labor without formal benefits like pensions or security.

In opposition, counsel for the State of Haryana, including Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan and Deputy Advocate Generals Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia and R.D. Sharma, urged dismissal on multiple grounds. They claimed non-maintainability, as petitioners failed to specify exact policies, and ineligibility under all schemes. For the 1993 and 1996 policies, engagements post-dated cut-offs; for 2003, petitioners lacked appointment against sanctioned posts, requisite qualifications (e.g., ITI for pump operators), and continuous 240-day service, with records showing breaks and literacy doubts. Engagements were purely muster-roll based for miscellaneous labor, not technical roles.

Invoking M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava (2006) 2 SCC 702 and Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021) 12 SCALE 66, respondents argued no mandamus for regularization of irregular hires, as states cannot create posts retrospectively. Uma Devi was cited to bar absorption of backdoor entries, emphasizing no fundamental right infringement and parity denial due to non-eligibility. They also raised delay and laches, noting petitions filed years after policies lapsed, rendering claims time-barred. Overall, the state portrayed petitioners as casual laborers undeserving of permanent status, prioritizing regular recruitment processes.

Legal Analysis

Justice Moudgil's reasoning meticulously dismantles the respondents' defenses, rooting the analysis in constitutional imperatives while reconciling landmark precedents. The court first addresses judicial restraint under Article 226, affirming that review extends beyond form to substance where state action yields unequal outcomes, per Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, which deems arbitrariness antithetical to the rule of law.

Central to the ruling is the scrutiny of "contractual" labels masking perennial engagements. The court invokes Uma Devi (supra), clarifying its distinction between illegal (backdoor) and irregular (procedural lapses in otherwise valid hires) appointments. While barring mandamus for illegal entries, Uma Devi mandates a one-time regularization for qualified workers on sanctioned posts with over 10 years' service as of April 10, 2006, to prevent exploitation. This is amplified in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247, which critiques state misuse and requires exhaustive consideration, including lower-post regularization for qualification gaps. The judgment notes petitioners' decade-plus service in essential functions, rendering denial arbitrary and contrary to Uma Devi 's humane intent.

Subsequent Supreme Court rulings fortify this: In Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), long tenures beyond 10 years, unblemished performance, and integral roles warrant regularization, rejecting "unsatisfactory service" as afterthoughts. Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No. 635 of 2013) rebukes "no sanctioned posts" pleas, holding states accountable for utilizing services without creation—posts "do not fall from heaven." Union of India v. K. Velajagan (2025 SCC OnLine SC 837) and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam decry Uma Devi as a shield for exploitative practices, mandating legitimate processes.

Pre- Uma Devi wisdom from State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 endures, urging schemes against ad-hoc perpetuation and regularization for long-eligible employees with satisfactory records. Locally, Khajjan Singh (supra) affirms legitimate expectations for essential-duty performers, overriding formalistic barriers. Ram Rattan v. State of Haryana (CWP-34585-2019, decided October 19, 2023) mirrors this, directing 2003 policy consideration and 6% interest on arrears, citing Article 16's equality facet.

The court distinguishes quashing irregular denials from creating rights, emphasizing welfare state ethos: Prolonged temporariness violates dignity under Article 21 and equality. Invoking Rajdharma and Bhagavad Gita 's lokasangraha (social stability), it critiques gig-economy parallels in public sector, where mislabeling deprives security, progression, and benefits. Delay/laches is rejected as continuing wrongs in a model employer-state, especially for vulnerable, illiterate workers.

This analysis reveals a dynamic constitutional safeguard: Entry regulation under Articles 14/16 extends to employment lifecycle, preventing injustice via selective policy application. The ruling integrates other sources, like media reports on Bhagavad Gita invoking state duties, to highlight civilizational roots of fairness.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with poignant excerpts emphasizing ethical governance and legal equity. Key observations include:

• On the welfare state's moral duty: "In a constitutional democracy, the State does not function as a private employer free to hire and discharge personnel at will; rather, it acts as a trustee of public power. Where ad hoc employees have, over successive years, shouldered the routine by keeping essential services moving, the law will not permit the State to consume their labour as if it were an endlessly renewable commodity, and then disclaim responsibility by simply labeling them 'contractual'."

• Reconciling Uma Devi : "It was restated with clarity in Umadevi (supra) that courts cannot ordinarily issue mandamus to absorb/regularize those not appointed through a constitutionally compliant and due process. Yet Umadevi (supra) also made a critical, humane and legally precise distinction between illegal appointments and irregular appointments; and it recognized that where duly qualified persons have worked for a decade or more in duly sanctioned vacant posts, the State must undertake a one-time regularization exercise as a matter of constitutional housekeeping."

• Critique of exploitation: "The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts... reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security... Government institutions... bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices." (Quoting Jaggo v. Union of India)

• On arbitrariness: "Such inaction of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, coupled with selective application of policy, bears the imprint of arbitrariness and defeats the very object underlying the constitutional mandate elucidated in Uma Devi (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra)."

• Ethos of governance: "Our ancient texts repeatedly place upon the sovereign an obligation to act with nyaya (justice), anrishamsya (non-cruelty), and balanced governance and the idea of lokasangraha as discussed in the Bhagvad Gita reminds public power that action must serve social stability and the common good, not merely administrative convenience."

These quotes illuminate the court's blend of legal rigor and moral imperative, making the ruling a beacon for service jurisprudence.

Court's Decision

The Punjab and Haryana High Court unequivocally allowed all writ petitions, setting aside any impugned rejection orders. Justice Moudgil directed the respondents (State of Haryana and departments) to regularize petitioners under relevant policies—1993, 1996, 2003, or 2011—applicable when eligibility first arose. For those not covered but with over 10 years' service as of December 31, 2025, regularization remains mandatory as a one-time measure, even if requiring post creation per Nihal Singh .

Consequential reliefs include pay fixation from due dates, arrears with 6% per annum interest until realization, and all attendant benefits like pensions. The exercise must conclude within eight weeks of certified copy receipt, with the judgment governing connected matters.

Practically, this ends perpetual insecurity for these workers, many nearing superannuation, ensuring financial stability and dignity. It compels Haryana to audit similar cases, potentially benefiting thousands statewide. Future implications are profound: Courts may more readily intervene against exploitative temporariness, urging states to implement Uma Devi holistically rather than evasively. By invoking Rajdharma , the ruling elevates labor rights discourse, potentially influencing policy reforms to curb ad-hoc hires in public sectors. For legal practitioners, it reinforces equitable review in service disputes, prioritizing substance over labels and vulnerable workers' rights. This decision not only rectifies historical wrongs but fortifies constitutional welfare against administrative apathy, fostering a just employment ecosystem.