Employee’s Right to Regularisation Continues Beyond Death; Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Grant of Benefits to Legal Heirs
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that an employee’s right to regularisation, once accrued, continues even after death and passes to the legal heirs. The Court stated that justice must ultimately restore what was lost both in legality and in principle, and that when an employee becomes eligible for regularisation before passing away, the benefit stands vested and cannot be withheld. In a petition filed by the family of a deceased daily-wage worker, the Bench directed the State to grant regular status from the date of entitlement and to release all consequential dues with interest.
Ram Kumar, who was initially engaged as a daily-wage Chokidar on May 1, 1978, under the Public Works Department (PWD) B&R, served continuously across various divisions in Kurukshetra, Panipat, Kaithal, and Murthal until July 1994. His services were terminated without notice on July 7, 1994. Following his dismissal, Kumar raised an industrial dispute, serving a demand notice dated December 7, 1996. The Labour Court adjudicated the matter and, through an award dated February 23, 2001, set aside his termination, declaring it illegal and in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of the demand notice.
The State of Haryana challenged this award in CWP No. 9996 of 2001 before the High Court. During the pendency of that petition, the State reinstated Ram Kumar and paid full back wages, rendering the writ infructuous. Meanwhile, the State’s rejection of his claim for regularization dated October 31, 2012, was challenged by Kumar in the present writ petition, CWP No. 200 of 2013.
Kumar passed away on May 9, 2020, during the pendency of the case. His legal heirs—widow Dhanpati, son Dinesh Kumar, and daughter Renu—were substituted as petitioners on record by order dated September 2, 2022. They continued to pursue the claim for regularization, contending that several of Kumar’s juniors, including Jagat Singh, Dharam Singh, Zile Singh, and Raju, had been regularized as of January 1, 1996, under the State’s 1996 regularization policy, and thus he too was entitled to the same treatment.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil examined the petitioner’s claim in light of prior judicial precedents, notably the High Court’s decision in Khajjan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (CWP No. 10017 of 2011) and the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3) and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sanghatana. The Court recorded that “the benefit of continuity in service must relate back to the date of the original appointment, and any break in service could not be used by the respondents to the prejudice of the workman so as to deny the benefits that would have otherwise accrued to him due to the wrongful termination.”
Referring to the broader industrial law principles, the judgment stated that “Umadevi (3) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.”
Addressing the State’s argument that the petitioner’s death rendered the case infructuous, the Court stated that “the cause of action had already crystallized, and the petitioner’s right to relief survives even after his demise.”
The Court noted, “merely for the reason that he unfortunately passed away on 09.05.2020 cannot violate the right by any stretch of imagination under any proposition of law to which the petitioner has become legally entitled.”
Justice Moudgil held: “This case is a solemn reminder that the law, while clothed in the formalities of procedure, must never lose sight of its humane purpose. The petitioner appears before us not in search of charity, but in pursuit of justice that ought to have been served during her husband’s lifetime.” The Court observed that Ram Kumar’s long and continuous service had “crossed the threshold where temporariness loses its meaning, and regularization becomes not an act of grace, but a matter of right.”
Justice Moudgil ordered that “the deceased employee shall be deemed to have been regularised from the date on which he became eligible for such benefit. All consequential entitlements, monetary and otherwise, shall accordingly be made over to the legal heirs, who today stand not merely as claimants to financial dues, but as representatives of a moral wrong seeking redress.”
The Bench directed the State of Haryana to issue orders for the regularization of Ram Kumar’s services from January 1, 1996—the date on which his juniors were regularized—within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and “all consequential benefits shall be released, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to mitigate the prejudice suffered by the petitioner’s legal heirs.”
“Justice, even if delayed, must be seen to repair what was broken not only in legality, but in principle.” It recognized the hardship endured by the petitioner’s family, remarking that the law must act as an instrument of fairness and equity.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Case Title: Ram Kumar (Deceased) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:130412
Case Number: CWP No. 200 of 2013
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil
