PHHC Directs State to Re-Evaluate Service Regularization for Contractual Employees

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the mandate for executive accountability in service regularization, directing the Haryana government to decide on the claims of long-term contractual employees in light of established judicial precedents. In a move to ensure procedural fairness, the Bench emphasized that statutory policies and settled law must dictate the transition of temporary staff to permanent positions rather than administrative inertia.

In a matter concerning the regularization of a Peon-cum-Chowkidar, a bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar heard the petition seeking parity with several landmark rulings on service law. The petitioner approached the court seeking a mandamus against the State for failing to regularize his services despite over a decade of continuous work against a sanctioned post.

Key Takeaways

Precedential Consistency

The Court reaffirmed that the State must evaluate regularization claims strictly in accordance with established judicial benchmarks set by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Sanctioned Post Significance

Continuous service against a sanctioned post for a decade triggers a right to be considered for regularization under existing Government policies.

Time-Bound Executive Action

The executive is mandated to pass reasoned and speaking orders within a specific timeframe to prevent indefinite litigation for Class-IV employees.

Judicial Mandate for Administrative Review

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, without expressing a final opinion on the merits, shifted the onus back to the competent authority to perform its statutory duty. The Bench highlighted that the petitioner's claim must be examined under the Haryana Government Regularization Notifications and the Part-II Policy of 2015.

Ratio

When a petitioner has rendered a significant length of continuous service against a sanctioned post, the competent authority is legally obligated to consider the claim for regularization by passing a reasoned and speaking order in alignment with established judicial precedents and prevailing state regularization policies.

Background

The petitioner was initially engaged as a Mali on a contractual basis through the Employment Exchange in 2011. Since July 2012, he had been serving as a Peon-cum-Chowkidar against a sanctioned post at Rajiv Gandhi Government College for Women, Bhiwani. Despite rendering over ten years of service and possessing an experience certificate verifying his conduct and continuous service, the State had not regularized his position.

The petitioner placed heavy reliance on Constitution of India, 1950 and specific state notifications from 2014 and 2015. He further cited Jaggo v. Union of India ( "2024 INSC 1034": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 715), Madan Singh v. State of Haryana ( "2026 SCC OnLine SC 628": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 333), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 221": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 263), and Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 621) to argue that the law is well-settled in favor of employees who have completed the requisite length of service. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ultimately disposed of the petition by granting the petitioner liberty to have his case decided via a comprehensive representation to the State authorities.

Case Details:
Case No.: CWP-36536-2026
Case Title: Harpal v. State of Haryana and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Bhupender Ghanghs, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 30038