State Cannot Balance Budgets on the Backs of Teachers: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Regularization of Contractual School Staff

“Long-Term Ad Hocism Offends Articles 14, 16 and 21”, In a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional obligations of the State as a model employer, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that prolonged contractual engagement in posts of a perennial nature cannot be used to deny regularization.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar allowed the writ petition filed by teachers and staff of a Municipal Council-run school and directed their reinstatement and regularization. The connected contempt petition was disposed of with a stern caution to the authorities.

The Court declared that the “long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection.”

Regularization Approved, Then Stayed

The petitioners, appointed in 2009 on contractual basis as teachers, lab attendants and support staff in Shivalik Model Senior Secondary School, Nangal, had been working continuously for years. In December 2016, following the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016, the Municipal Council passed a resolution approving their regularization and issued regular appointment letters.

However, the Director, Department of Local Government, stayed the implementation of the resolution on 26.04.2017. Thereafter, their contracts were retrospectively renewed for six months. The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the stay.

On 16.08.2017, a Coordinate Bench directed that “status quo as it exists today shall be maintained.”

Despite this, the petitioners were relieved from service on 21.08.2017, leading to the filing of contempt proceedings.

“Petitioners Were in Service When Status Quo Was Ordered”

The High Court carefully examined documentary evidence including attendance sheets, duty allotments for Independence Day celebrations, and official resolutions.

The Court found that the petitioners were very much in service on 16.08.2017 when the status quo order was passed. Their relieving thereafter amounted to non-adherence to the Court’s direction.

Justice Brar held:

“Clearly, the petitioners were in service as on 16.08.2017. Thus, the petitioners cannot be faulted for the break in their service owing to the failure of the concerned respondents to abide by the order of this Court.”

The Court protected continuity of service and refused to allow the respondents to take advantage of their own non-compliance.

“Umadevi Is Not a Talisman to Deny Fairness”

In a strong constitutional analysis, the Court observed a disturbing trend of keeping employees on contractual or ad hoc basis for years despite the perennial nature of work.

Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments including Jaggo v. Union of India, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. and Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasized:

“The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts.”

The Court further quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that the State:

“cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.”

Rejecting mechanical reliance on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, the Court clarified that Umadevi does not sanction perpetual ad hocism where the work is permanent and the State itself has relied on the workforce for years.

“Extended Ad Hocism Undermines Equality and Dignity”

Justice Brar held that keeping employees in limbo for over a decade while extracting regular work violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed:

“The extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity.”

The judgment reinforces that financial constraints, lack of sanctioned posts, or administrative excuses cannot override constitutional discipline.

Directions Issued: Reinstatement and Deemed Regularization

Allowing the writ petition, the Court:

Set aside the letter dated 26.04.2017 staying regularization
Set aside the consequential order dated 06.07.2017
Directed reinstatement of the petitioners from the date they were relieved
Directed regularization within six weeks

The Court added that if no order is passed within six weeks, the petitioners “shall be deemed to be regularized.”

They were also granted counting of past service for benefits, though no back wages were awarded for the period they remained out of service.

Contempt Petition: “Willful Non-Compliance Uncondonable”

In the connected contempt matter, the Court noted that only three out of several petitioners were selectively reinstated, which “further vindicates the stand taken by the petitioners.”

Though the respondents failed to satisfactorily explain the violation of the status quo order, the Court adopted a lenient view due to efflux of time but sternly advised the authorities to remain careful in future.

A Strong Message to Public Authorities

This judgment sends a clear message: the State and its instrumentalities must act as model employers. They cannot perpetuate precarious employment arrangements for years while benefiting from permanent work.

The decision strengthens the constitutional pushback against systemic ad hocism in public employment and reiterates that fairness, dignity and equality are not optional administrative choices — they are constitutional mandates.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2026