Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has ordered the regularisation of temporary employees after finding that they had been compelled to seek relief in court for the ninth time since 2005, despite an earlier favourable order. In a strongly worded judgment, the Court observed that habitual delay and outright denial of rightful service benefits to employees, caused by bureaucratic red-tapism and administrative indifference, is a longstanding issue. Issuing a set of accountability guidelines for government departments, the Court directed immediate compliance with its directions and warned that any further deviation would invite contempt proceedings.

The petitioners, including Hari Ram, were initially engaged on temporary basis in 1995 onwards. Along with one Vir Bahadur @ Bir Bahadur @ Veer Bahadur, they first approached the High Court in CWP-17563-2002. That petition was allowed in 2005. In compliance, Vir Bahadur’s services were regularised and he was granted full consequential benefits. The petitioners, however, were not accorded the same treatment.

Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies Migration to Unreserved Posts | Relaxations in Age Barred Under RPF Standing Orders, Physical Standards Not a Disqualification in CISF Recruitment

Over the years, the petitioners filed multiple proceedings seeking parity. In 2019, they instituted CWP-35829-2019, which was disposed of on 25.03.2025 with directions to reconsider their case in light of the 2005 decision. The respondents, however, again rejected the claims on 23.05.2025 citing non-availability of sanctioned posts.

The petitioners argued that their circumstances were identical to those of Vir Bahadur, who had already been regularised, and that denial of parity violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. They relied on Supreme Court rulings in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024), and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), where the Apex Court held that long-term ad hoc employment undermines constitutional protections and cannot be perpetuated.

The respondents maintained that sanctioned posts existed in Vir Bahadur’s case but not for the petitioners, thereby distinguishing the two situations. The Court had to consider whether administrative reasoning of this nature could justify continued denial of regularisation after nearly three decades of service.

Justice Brar referred to binding precedents including Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) and judgments of the Division Bench of this Court. The Court observed: “What has deeply pricked the conscience of this Court is that the petitioners, after rendering spotless and unblemished service for nearly three decades, have been compelled to approach this Court for the 9th time seeking the reliefs rightfully due to them. The first petition was allowed in 2005, yet ever since, the petitioners have been forced to run from pillar to post in pursuit of the very benefits they are legally entitled to.”

“Habitual delay and outright denial of rightful service benefits to employees, caused by bureaucratic red-tape and administrative indifference, is one of the longstanding issues observed by this Court.”

The Court further recorded: “The delivery of judgments alone does not guarantee the credibility of the justice system. True justice is realized only when the administration acts promptly and effectively to enforce the decisions of the courts.”

To address systemic failings, the Court laid down detailed accountability mechanisms for departments and officers:

“1. Accountability & Responsibility – Each order must clearly specify the officer responsible for its implementation. In cases of delay, personal accountability should be recorded in the concerned officer’s service record.”

“2. Statutory Time Limits – There should be mandatory timelines established for implementing service-related judgments, unless specifically stayed by a higher court. Failure to comply within this period must automatically trigger accountability mechanisms.”

“3. Monitoring Mechanism – Every department should establish a centralized Judgment Implementation Cell tasked with tracking compliance. These cells must submit quarterly reports to the department head for his appraisal and necessary action if required.”

“4. Digital Transparency Tools – The implementation status of court orders should be available on an online portal, providing transparency and allowing employees to monitor the progress of their cases. Further, there should be digitalization of service records to reduce procedural bottlenecks.”

“5. Pre-Litigation Grievance Redressal – Internal grievance mechanisms must be developed to allow employees to seek redressal before approaching the courts for matters already settled in law. This would reduce unnecessary litigation and lessen the burden on judicial bodies.”

“6. Training and Awareness – Regular capacity-building initiatives should be conducted to sensitize officers about the constitutional importance of implementing court orders, the rule of law, and the serious consequences of administrative indifference.”

“7. Performance Appraisals – Compliance with judicial directives should form a part of the measurable performance evaluation criteria in the annual appraisals of administrative officers.”

Justice Brar ordered: “The respondent-Corporation is directed to regularise the services of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If no order of regularization is passed within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be deemed to be regularized and they would be entitled to seniority and regular pay from the expiry of aforesaid period.”

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court | Magistrates Empowered to Grant Bail Even If Earlier Plea Rejected by HC, When Closure Report Is Filed | Criminal History Only a Factor, Not a Bar Under S.480 BNSS

The petitioners “are entitled to all consequential benefits at par with those granted to Vir Bahadur @ Bir Bahadur @ Veer Bahadur. Any deviation of this judgment by the respondent-Corporation would entitle the petitioners to move an appropriate application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating the contempt proceedings.”

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly. Copies of the judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretaries of Punjab, Haryana, and the U.T. Chandigarh “for making suitable changes in their litigation policy.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate; Mr. Divyanshu Kaushik, Advocate

Case Title: Hari Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:121886
Case Number: CWP-25042-2025 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar