Continuity of Service After Labour Court Award Grants Crystallized Right to Regularization Under Withdrawn Policy: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Once a Court Grants Continuity, State Cannot Deny Regularization on Technical Grounds” – In a decisive judgment that will have far-reaching implications for thousands of casual and daily wage employees across Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the regularization of long-serving Group-D workers of the Forest Department, holding that judicially affirmed continuity of service cannot be nullified by administrative fiat, and that withdrawal of a policy cannot extinguish accrued rights.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, deciding a batch of 50 connected writ petitions led by CWP-26643-2025 (O&M) titled Manoj Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, quashed the State’s rejection orders and directed the regularization of petitioners under the Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003, as amended on 10.02.2004, within one month. The petitioners, who were casual labourers engaged since around the year 2000, had obtained Labour Court awards directing reinstatement with continuity of service, which were affirmed by the High Court, but were later denied regularization under pretexts of technical disqualifications, withdrawal of policy, and applicability of Uma Devi.

“Continuity is Not Symbolic, It Obliterates the Break” – Labour Court’s Award Has Binding Consequences

Rejecting the State's contention that the Labour Court’s order granting reinstatement with continuity had no bearing on regularization, the High Court emphasized the legal effect of such an award, stating:

“Continuity is not a symbolic relief. It is a legal restoration of service status.”

Relying on Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, the Court held that once continuity of service is judicially granted, the employee must be treated as having uninterrupted service for all consequential purposes. The attempt to deny regularization on the ground of breaks or lack of sanctioned posts was condemned as an indirect challenge to judicial finality.

The Court clarified that employers cannot dispute continuity of service once such a finding has attained finality in judicial proceedings.

“Right to Regularization Crystallized While Policy Was in Force – Withdrawal in 2007 Can't Apply Retrospectively”

Justice Moudgil ruled that the petitioners’ right to be considered for regularization stood crystallized as they had satisfied the eligibility criteria under the 2003–2004 policy prior to its withdrawal in 2007. The Court declared:

“Once an employee fulfills all the conditions of a policy while it is in operation, the benefit becomes a vested entitlement which cannot be retrospectively defeated.”

The Regularization Policy mandated that Group-D daily wagers who had completed three years of service as on 30.09.2003 and had worked 240 days in each year were entitled to be regularized. The Court found that the petitioners had completed over 24 years of service, and their employment had been recognized in Labour Court awards.

The State’s attempt to rely on the 2007 withdrawal notification and Yogesh Tyagi judgment to defeat accrued rights was rejected. The Court distinguished Yogesh Tyagi by noting that petitioners had fulfilled the policy conditions prior to withdrawal, and the denial stemmed from State inaction, not petitioners’ fault.

“State Cannot Invoke Uma Devi to Justify Discrimination After Granting Regularization to Others”

Perhaps the strongest censure came in the Court’s repudiation of the State’s mechanical reliance on the Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment in Uma Devi. Justice Moudgil called out the misuse of the doctrine to deny benefits to long-serving workers, observing:

“The judgment in Uma Devi was not intended to defeat the claim for regularization of employees whose appointment was irregular but not unlawful. It is a safeguard against illegal appointments.”

Citing Jaggo v. Union of India (2025 All SCR 778) and Om Prakash v. State of West Bengal (2023), the Court held that “irregular” appointments protected by long years of service, State acquiescence, and judicial findings cannot be clubbed with illegal backdoor appointments. The distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, reiterated in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab and Prem Singh v. State of U.P., was emphasized.

“To deny relief in the present case would not only perpetuate arbitrariness, but also result in hostile discrimination, particularly when similarly situated employees have been extended the benefit of regularization.”

Parity and Equality – Once Juniors Have Been Regularized, Denial Becomes Arbitrariness

The petitioners successfully demonstrated that similarly situated employees, even juniors, had been regularized under the same policy. The Court held that the State’s failure to explain the differential treatment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

“Equality before law requires that persons similarly situated must be treated alike. Selective denial, without rational basis, renders the action discriminatory.”

The Court followed the principle laid down in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, cautioning that legitimate claims of long-serving workers cannot be ignored merely because a ‘one-time’ regularization exercise was completed.

“Length of Service Proves Need – State Cannot Exploit Workers for Decades and Then Disown Them”

Addressing the State’s contention of non-sanctioned posts, the Court acknowledged that judicial directions cannot compel the creation of posts, but clarified that this does not allow the State to exploit workers by denying regularization where sanctioned functions were performed over decades.

Quoting Prem Singh (2019) and Putti Lal (2006), the Court emphasized that long service in Group-D roles implies a continuing need, and State employers cannot “shrug off their responsibility”.

“The State’s right to recruit flows from constitutional provisions, but its responsibility as a model employer requires fairness in dealing with long-serving workers.”

Delay Not Attributable to Petitioners – State Withheld Rejection Order for Five Years

The State’s argument of delay and laches was found to be untenable, as the order rejecting the regularization request dated 13.11.2020 was never communicated to the petitioner, who only became aware during contempt proceedings in 2025.

“The delay is directly attributable to the State. Limitation cannot be computed against a litigant until the impugned order is made known to him.”

Model Employer Doctrine – Justice Not Technicality

The High Court strongly invoked the Model Employer Doctrine, holding that government departments must lead by example, especially where workers from the lowest economic strata are concerned:

“Government institutions must reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold principles of justice and fairness they are meant to embody.”

Regularization Granted with Arrears and Interest

Accordingly, the High Court:

• Quashed the rejection orders passed by the Forest Department.
• Directed regularization of all petitioners under the 2003–2004 policy within one month.
• Ordered payment of arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date amounts became due.

“Justice is not merely about technical legality but about ensuring that the constitutional promise of equality is lived in practice,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: December 23, 2025