Contractual Employees Eligible for Regularization Under 2003 and 2011 Policies, Subject to Conditions: Punjab & Haryana High Court

State Bound by Its Own 2014 Notification for Regularization of Eligible Employees –  Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that contractual, ad-hoc, and daily wage employees who were eligible under the 2003 regularization policy but were not regularized due to administrative reasons must now be considered for regularization within six months. The Court also directed the State to consider condoning shortfalls of up to three months for employees seeking regularization under the 2011 policy, subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court litigation.

The petitioners, employed for decades in various government departments in Haryana, sought regularization under the 2003, 2011, and 2014 policies. The State opposed their claims, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which restricted backdoor regularization. However, the State’s own 2014 notification had revived the benefit of regularization for employees who were otherwise eligible but denied due to administrative delays.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal, in his ruling, observed that the State is bound by its 2014 notification, which explicitly provides that employees eligible for regularization under the 2003 policy but not regularized for administrative reasons shall now be regularized from the date of their eligibility. The Court directed that if an eligible employee has already retired, they shall be entitled to revised pensionary benefits, along with arrears from the date of petition filing, without interest.

Discussing the applicability of the 2011 policy, the Court noted that some petitioners narrowly fell short of the 10-year continuous service requirement as of April 10, 2006. It held that "the State should consider condoning marginal shortfalls of up to three months, subject to the Supreme Court’s final ruling in SLP (C) No. 18374 of 2022." The Court further stated that if these petitioners were found eligible, they would be entitled to arrears from the date of filing the petition, without interest.

The Court refused to entertain the claim of employees who were regularized in 2014 after a walk-in interview and were now seeking retrospective regularization from 2003. Rejecting their plea, it ruled, "The petitioners accepted regular appointments in 2014, signed affidavits waiving previous claims, and have enjoyed the benefits of regular employment since then. They cannot now claim retrospective regularization from 2003." The Court relied on the principle of estoppel, holding that employees cannot go back on their sworn affidavits and claim an earlier regularization date.

For petitioners who were not eligible under the 2003 or 2011 policies, the Court directed the State to consider their cases under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, which grants security of tenure until superannuation, along with benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment.

Observing an inconsistency between the 2014 notification and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Uma Devi, the Court remarked, "While the 2014 notification contradicts Uma Devi, this Court cannot disregard binding precedents upholding it. The State, however, may reconsider its validity in the future."

The Court extensively relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247, Narendra Kumar Tiwari (2018) 8 SCC 238, and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), reaffirming the principle that long-term temporary employment amounts to exploitation, and employees meeting eligibility criteria must be considered for regularization.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling strikes a balance between employees’ rights and the State’s duty to ensure constitutional compliance in public employment. While upholding the 2014 notification, the Court has left room for future reconsideration of its legality. This decision reinforces the importance of adherence to government policies and judicial precedents while ensuring fairness for long-serving contractual employees.

Date of Decision: 22/01/2025