Last Updated on June 19, 2024 by Satish Mishra

Post covers Regularization Petition High Court Chandigarh wherein petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for allowing claim rejected by respondent.

Usually government departments regularize the services of employees based on their tenure/stay in accordance with the regularization policy prevailing. Also, sometimes through courts order where necessary intervention of High Court Chandigarh required.

Applicant usually seeks direction to the respondents to regularize their services in view of various judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Apex Court and also on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

Problem persists when the services of the similarly-situated employees have already been regularized but the petitioners have been left out for the reasons best known to the respondents.

Petition for Regularization Chandigarh High Court

First and foremost sent Legal Representation to your Government Department claiming regularization and clarifying on what basis you are claiming it. So, department can give specific reply to your claim stating regularization.

If department fails to answer your claim, still you can approach Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing petition for regularization in High Court Chandigarh.

But if they do reply and deny, it is better for us. You can now go to the court with your defence.

Also Read- Punjab And Haryana High Court Regularization Judgments

Regularization not covered for Seasonal Work

If petitioner worked for a very short span and there are many years when they have not worked at all. The claim of regularization is not a vested or fundamental right of the employees. The petitioners can never claim regularization when not appointed against regular or sanctioned post. They are casual workers cannot be considered for regularization.

Also Read- Govt Can’t Say No Regular Work For Temporary Employees

Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Uma Devi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1

has answered with question of regularization of temporary/part time/adhoc employees. The Court has deprecated practice of employing temporary/part time or contractual employees though Court has held that in exigency, State can make appointment on contract basis. The Court has held that regularization of contractual or part time employees would amount to legalization of back door entry. The regularization of part time employees is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 309 of Constitution of India. The employees who are working on daily wages cannot claim discrimination on the ground that they have been paid lesser than regularly recruited employees. The High Court should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization or continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. High Court is not justified in issuing interim orders in such cases. There is no fundamental or vested right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporary or contractual to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service.

Also Read- Regularization Case in Punjab Haryana High Court

The doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either

(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn.

Also Read- Regularisation of daily wage employees: HC tells Haryana

Though, there is a case that the State had made regularisations in the past of similarly situated employees, the fact remains that such regularisations were done only pursuant to judicial directions, either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some cases by this Court. Moreover, the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularised in the service though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment. The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularisation of the employees involved in those cases cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation.

Also Read- Chandigarh High Court Regularization in Government Job Case

Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees. It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive relief of being made permanent in the post.

Also Read- Employees’ regularisation policy challenged in HC

No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.

Also Read- Case Status System of Punjab and Haryana High Court

It is therefore not possible to accept the argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. When the court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the court has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even though they have never been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

in Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.17206 of 2014, set aside policy of regularization made by the State. The Court has set aside policy on the ground that regularization of contractual employees who have been appointed without following prescribed procedure amounts to back door entry and it amounts to violation of Articles 14 , 16 & 309 of Constitution of India.

Also Read- Retrenchment Case Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar

This observation/guideline is to be read keeping in mind the basic principles of legal jurisprudence i.e., law is to be read and interpreted to be beneficial for the suffered to protect the legal rights of those employees, who shall not be kept into service on daily-wage/contract/work-charge/part-time basis, for a long indefinite period.

The Supreme Court of India in a three judges Bench decision in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2019 (10) SCC 516 also considered Uma Devi’s case (supra) and directed to regularize the service of those employees, who have worked for 10 years or more alongwith all other benefits to which they became entitled and also for some of the employees therein, who have attained the age of superannuation, were held entitled to receive pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment.

Also Read- Chandigarh High Court Regularization Case Dismissed

Refer to Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in CWP 34585 of 2019 and CWP 28656 of 2013 decided on 11.10.2023 and CWP no. 17206 of 2014 (Yogesh Tyagi) which is now before Supreme Court in SLP no. 31566 of 2018 concerning employees who were regularized under the Regularization policy of 2014.

The policy of the Haryana State government dated 18.03.2011 was examined by this Court at length in the judgment rendered in CWP-24337-2012 in ‘Shri Pal and others vs. State of Punjab and others’ decided on 17.08.2015 and the persons who have been working for 3 years or more have been regularized, provided they fulfilled the other conditions laid down in the policy. Same was narrated in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, in LPA754-2010.

State cannot exclude departments on his own whims and fancy in regularization policy.

Also Read- CPWD Regularization Case CAT Chandigarh Bench

Conclusion- So the applicant for Regularization Petition High Court Chandigarh must be covered under the applicable policy and in sync with the latest ruling on the topic.

You might also check with Best Service Lawyer Advocate of Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana for Regularization for case specific advice here.