Punjab and Haryana High Court | Army Authorities Pulled Up for Misrepresenting Facts | Denial of Regularisation to Military Farm Personnel with 30+ Years’ Service Held Illegal
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri dismissed a group of writ petitions filed by the Union of India, directing full implementation of a Tribunal order mandating regularization of employees who had served for over three decades. The Court held that the Army authorities had attempted to deny the benefit of regularization on the basis of incorrect facts, and ordered compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier directions. The judgment recorded that the petitioners had misrepresented facts before both the Tribunal and the Court, and that such conduct could not justify depriving employees of long service from fair regularization. The Division Bench concluded that no grounds for interference were made out and dismissed all petitions accordingly.
The dispute arose from employment in Military Farms operated by the Union of India. The respondent employees had been working since 1988 onwards in different capacities. In 1998, these employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh, seeking regularization of their services. The Tribunal, in its order dated 11.03.1999 in O.A. No.738/HR/1998, directed that their claims for regularization be considered without insisting that their names be sponsored through the Employment Exchange. Pursuant to this, some employees were regularized, but the present respondents continued in service without regularization despite long tenure.
After around thirty years of continuous service, the employees again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.60/1129/2017, where on 18.02.2019, the Tribunal directed that the claims for regularization be considered against 64 available posts. Importantly, at the time of the Tribunal’s order, no contention was raised by the petitioners that the posts had been abolished. Subsequently, the Union of India rejected the employees’ claims on 21.06.2019, citing grounds such as non-sponsorship through the Employment Exchange and claiming that 64 posts had already been withdrawn on 24.09.2018. The employees contested this rejection, arguing it was contrary to the Tribunal’s earlier orders.
The employees filed execution proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on 12.03.2025, directed the petitioners to implement the order of 18.02.2019 in letter and spirit, after noting that the factual basis for rejection was flawed. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the abolition of posts occurred on 10.08.2020, much after the rejection order of 21.06.2019, thereby invalidating the petitioners’ claims of post-abolition.
The Union of India challenged this order of 12.03.2025 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a batch of 17 writ petitions. The Bench recorded that the respondent employees had been in service from 1988 until 2020, with salary slips evidencing work even until February 2020. The respondents were treated as daily wagers but continued performing the same functions.
During arguments, the Union of India admitted that the employees’ names were not sponsored through the Employment Exchange, yet conceded that the 1999 Tribunal order had already directed consideration of their cases without such sponsorship. The Court noted that despite this, the same ground was relied upon in 2019 to reject their claims, contrary to the binding Tribunal order.
The respondents submitted that they had continued to work and produce salary slips, and therefore abolition of posts could not have been in 2018. The petitioners admitted that abolition was formally decided only on 10.08.2020. The Court held that the rejection on the basis of 2018 abolition was factually incorrect.
The respondents further relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Jaggo vs. Union of India (2024), Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024), Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025), and Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019), which held that employees serving more than ten years continuously, even on irregular appointments, should be considered for regularization, and those attaining superannuation should be deemed regularized for pensionary benefits.
The Division Bench recorded its findings in unequivocal terms. It stated: “It is sorry state of affairs that Army authorities are before this Court so as to deny the benefit of regularization of service to the employees, who have worked with them for a period of more than three decades and that too on the basis of the incorrect facts and by manipulating the facts, not only before the Tribunal but before this Court as well.”
The Court noted that in 1999 the Tribunal had already directed regularization without requiring Employment Exchange sponsorship: “Once, an employee has worked for a period of more than 10 years, the said employee should be considered for regularization of his/her services without insisting upon as to whether the name of such employee was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not.” The Bench found that rejection of the employees’ claims in 2019 on this very ground amounted to contempt of the Tribunal’s earlier order.
The Court observed: “This clearly shows that the petitioners-UOI were to reject the claim of the respondents for regularization irrespective of the fact as to whether the employee concerned was entitled for the benefit of regularization or not. This shows the mind set of the petitioners-UOI while dealing with the direction given by the competent Court of law for considering the claim of the respondents for regularization of their services, who have served them for a period of more than 30 years.”
On the issue of abolition of posts, the Court recorded: “In case, the said fact is correct then why the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the direction was given vide order dated 18.02.2019… Further, even if, such directions were given by the Tribunal, then why the petitioners-UOI did not challenge the said order dated 18.02.2019… Rather the said order was accepted by the petitioners-UOI and consideration was given which shows that the petitioners-UOI intended to hoodwink the Court.”
The Court noted misrepresentation: “The petitioners-UOI are misrepresenting the facts before this Court as well.” It further stated: “On being asked as to whether prior to the passing of the order dated 18.02.2019… the respondents were not working on daily wages, learned counsel for the petitioners-UOI conceded that the status of the respondents remained the same… and same continued.”
The Bench considered whether employees who had given more than three decades of service could be denied regularization. It stated: “Can it be said that an employee who has given more than three decades of his life in service, is to be treated in a manner that his/her services cannot be regularized though, there was no complaint qua the work and conduct of such employee especially when there existed 64 posts to regularize the services of all the respondents-employees.”
The judgment relied on Supreme Court precedents. Citing Jaggo vs. Union of India (2024), the Court quoted: “Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization.” It further recorded from Vinod Kumar (2024): “Procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed temporary but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee.”
The Court also cited Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025): “The State being a welfare State cannot exploit the employees so as to keep them on work-charged basis for years together and not to regularise their services so as to cause prejudice to them.” Finally, in Prem Singh (2019), the Supreme Court held: “They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.”
In light of these observations, the Court concluded that the Tribunal’s direction of 12.03.2025 could not be treated as arbitrary or illegal.
The High Court directed that the order of the Tribunal dated 12.03.2025 mandating implementation of the 2019 Tribunal order be upheld. The Division Bench stated: “Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and all the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.” The Court held that the Tribunal’s directions to implement the order of 18.02.2019 in letter and spirit, considering the factual availability of 64 posts, stood confirmed.
The judgment directed that photocopies of the order be placed on the files of connected cases. It further directed disposal of all pending civil miscellaneous applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kaul, Advocate and Mr. K. Vinay, Advocate; Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate
Case Title: Union of India and others vs. Sher Singh and others & connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:105384-DB
Case Number: CWP-22648-2025 (O&M) & connected cases
Bench: Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, Justice Vikas Suri
