The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Haryana to decide, within three months, whether petitioners who have completed ten years of contractual service are entitled to regularization, while preserving their current employment status. The judgment does not grant regularization outright but establishes a clear procedural obligation on the state to issue a reasoned order grounded in precedent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are contractual employees engaged by various departments of the State of Haryana. They have been continuously employed for over ten years in roles ranging from clerical to technical support, without formal regularization despite repeated representations. They seek regularization of their services from the date they completed ten years of service, along with arrears of pay at 12% interest per annum, and protection of job security under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024.
Key Facts
- The petitioners have been employed on contractual basis for more than ten years, with no fixed-term contracts or periodic renewals indicating temporary intent
- No formal recruitment process or selection committee proceedings were conducted for their engagement
- Multiple representations were made to the concerned departments between 2018 and 2025, all of which remained unaddressed or were rejected without reasoning
- The Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, was notified on 06.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), providing for job security and wage parity for long-serving contractual employees
- The petitioners rely on the judgment in Manak Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-13015-2021, decided on 19.01.2026, Annexure P-14), which held that prolonged service beyond ten years raises a legitimate expectation of regularization
Procedural History
- 2015 - 2024: Continuous service of petitioners without regularization
- 2023 - 2025: Multiple written representations submitted to Department Heads and Finance Department
- 01.01.2026: Writ Petition (CWP-7904-2026) filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- 16.03.2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered orally by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that their uninterrupted service for over a decade, absence of any termination notice, and the enactment of the 2024 Act collectively create a legitimate expectation of regularization. They contended that the state’s inaction amounts to arbitrariness under Article 14 and violates the principle of non-arbitrary state action.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the core prayer for a reasoned decision. The Additional Advocate General conceded that the matter required adjudication and expressed no objection to the Court directing the competent authority to consider the claim with a speaking order.
Relief Sought
- Regularization of services from the date of completion of ten years of service
- Grant of job security under the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024
- Payment of arrears of pay with interest at 12% per annum from the date of completion of ten years until actual realization
- Maintenance of status quo pending decision
The Legal Issue
Whether the prolonged service of contractual employees beyond ten years, in the absence of any termination or formal recruitment, creates a legitimate expectation of regularization, and whether the state is obligated to decide such claims through a reasoned order under constitutional principles.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Manak Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (CWP-13015-2021, 19.01.2026), which held that continuous service exceeding ten years, coupled with the state’s acquiescence, raises a legitimate expectation that must be addressed through a fair and reasoned decision-making process. They also invoked the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, as a legislative recognition of the rights of long-serving contractual workers. The absence of any statutory bar to regularization was emphasized.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the legal principle but declined to make a substantive submission, instead accepting the Court’s direction to issue a speaking order. The Additional Advocate General acknowledged that the petitioners’ claims merited adjudication and that the state had no objection to the Court mandating a time-bound decision.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not rule on the merits of regularization but focused on the procedural obligation of the state. It recognized that the petitioners had been in continuous service for over a decade, with no indication of temporary employment or periodic review. The Court noted that the state’s silence over years, combined with the enactment of the 2024 Act, created a situation where the petitioners had a reasonable expectation of fair treatment.
"The state cannot indefinitely keep employees in a state of uncertainty after more than a decade of service, particularly when legislative intent under the 2024 Act signals a shift towards security of service."
The Court distinguished this from cases where contractual appointments were explicitly temporary or subject to renewal. Here, the absence of any termination or replacement over ten years indicated de facto permanence. The Court further relied on Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2007) 13 SCC 292, which held that contractual employees cannot be arbitrarily replaced while their claims are pending adjudication.
The Court emphasized that the right to a reasoned decision is a facet of Article 14 and Article 21. A non-speaking order or indefinite delay would amount to denial of justice. The direction to treat the writ petition as a comprehensive representation was intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure finality.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded on procedural grounds. The Court directed respondent No.2 to treat the writ petition as a comprehensive representation and pass a speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of this order. The decision must be communicated to the petitioners. If found entitled, regularization and arrears shall be granted forthwith. In the interim, the petitioners shall not be replaced, and their current service status shall be maintained as per Hargurpratap Singh v. State of Punjab. The Court did not grant arrears or interest at this stage, leaving those claims to be determined by the competent authority.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Status Quo Is a Constitutional Safeguard
- Practitioners must immediately move for status quo orders in cases involving long-serving contractual employees facing potential termination
- The Hargurpratap Singh precedent now applies uniformly across all states where similar contractual employment exists
- Replacement of employees pending adjudication is a violation of Article 14 and may attract contempt proceedings
Speaking Orders Are Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Any authority deciding regularization claims must provide reasons, even if the outcome is adverse
- Blanket rejections without analysis of service duration, nature of duties, or legislative intent are liable to be set aside
- The Manak Singh precedent now binds all state governments in the region to treat ten years of continuous service as a threshold for triggering a duty to decide
Legislative Intent Can Shape Judicial Expectations
- The enactment of the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024, is now a relevant factor in evaluating legitimate expectation
- Courts may consider such statutes as evidence of policy shift, even if not retroactive
- Legal arguments should now routinely cite analogous state legislation to bolster claims of reasonable expectation
