State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization

“Affidavit Obtained Under Compulsion Cannot Defeat Constitutional Rights”, In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court, speaking through Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, held that an affidavit obtained from a daily wage employee as a condition for regularization — undertaking not to claim past service benefits — cannot be used by the State to deny lawful entitlements.

P&H High  Court deprecated the practice of extracting undertakings from vulnerable employees and observed that any such affidavit obtained under undue influence is void or voidable under Sections 16, 19A and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The impugned order dated 19.09.2025, which rejected the petitioner’s claim for regularization with effect from 01.10.2003 solely on the basis of such an undertaking, was found to be legally unsustainable.

Background: Daily Wager Since 1992, Regularized Only In 2014

The petitioner was appointed as Cattle Pond Moharrir on daily wages in December 1992. The Haryana Government framed a regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 providing that employees who had completed three years of service would be regularized.

The petitioner’s services were terminated, leading to an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, vide award dated 21.09.2005, directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. Though the award was partly modified in writ proceedings to restrict back wages to 25%, continuity of service stood intact.

Despite eligibility under the 2003 policy, the petitioner’s services were regularized only on 02.01.2014. At that time, the Corporation allegedly compelled him to furnish an affidavit stating that he would not claim benefits of his past service.

When he later sought regularization retrospectively from 01.10.2003, the claim was rejected solely on the basis of this undertaking.

“Petitioner Had No Real Choice”: Court Invokes Indian Contract Act

Justice Brar observed that the petitioner, a Class IV employee, “did not have a real choice and had to submit to the whimsical approach” of the Corporation.

Referring to Sections 16, 19A and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, the Court held that any contract or undertaking entered into under undue influence or against public policy is void or voidable.

The Court categorically ruled that the Corporation “cannot be allowed to take shelter of the affidavit… to justify denying the petitioner his legal right.”

The finding strikes at the root of a recurring administrative practice of conditioning service benefits on forced waivers.

“Continuity Of Service Cannot Be Ignored”

The Court took serious note of the fact that the Labour Court had granted reinstatement with continuity of service. It remarked that the conduct of the Corporation demonstrated “no regard” for the award.

Relying on the Full Bench decision in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that once services are regularized, there is “hardly any logic to deprive” an employee of benefits flowing from prior service.

Quoting from Kesar Chand, the Court emphasized that denial of benefits to employees who initially served on daily wage or work-charged basis amounts to arbitrariness and violates Article 14.

“State Is A Constitutional Employer — Ad-Hocism Cannot Be Perpetuated”

In strong observations, the Court deprecated the trend of engaging employees for decades on ad hoc or temporary basis despite the perennial nature of work.

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

Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments in Jaggo, Vinod Kumar, Shripal, and Dharam Singh, the Court held that Umadevi cannot be used as a shield to justify long-term “ad-hocism” where the work itself is permanent.

The Court echoed the Supreme Court’s caution that financial constraints are not a “talisman” overriding fairness, reason and constitutional discipline under Articles 14, 16 and 21.

It further observed that both Punjab and Haryana have, at times, formulated policies to circumvent implementation of constitutional court judgments, keeping employees “in limbo unnecessarily.”

Impugned Order Found Mechanical

The High Court found that the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 was passed “entirely on the basis of affidavit… which is an illegal document and was obtained… forcibly.”

Holding that the matter required fresh consideration in light of binding precedents, the Court directed respondent No.3 to treat the writ petition as a comprehensive representation and decide the claim afresh within three months, after granting an opportunity of hearing.

If the petitioner is found entitled, benefits are to be granted forthwith.

The Court also granted liberty to initiate contempt proceedings under Article 215 in case of non-compliance.

The ruling sends a strong message that constitutional rights in public employment cannot be bartered away through undertakings extracted under compulsion. Contracts obtained through unequal bargaining power, particularly in public service, cannot override statutory policies, judicial awards, or constitutional guarantees.

By reaffirming that the State must act as a “model employer,” the High Court has once again reminded public authorities that administrative convenience cannot trump equality, dignity and fairness in public employment.

Date of Decision: 13/02/2026