The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that employees regularized under a distinct government policy cannot have their assured career progression benefits withheld due to pending litigation involving a separate, later policy. This ruling reinforces the principle that legal challenges to one regularization scheme do not automatically invalidate rights accrued under another.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, government employees in Haryana, were appointed on daily wages and later regularized under the Haryana Government’s Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 (Annexure P-1). They were granted the first Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit after completing 10 years of service. However, the respondents denied them the second ACP benefit, due on completion of 16 years of service, on the ground that a Supreme Court Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 031566-2018) challenging a different regularization policy - dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-30) - was pending. The petitioners contended that their regularization under the 2003 policy was entirely separate from the 2014 policy under challenge.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were appointed on daily wages on various dates between 1991 and 2000
- They were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2003 under the Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003
- First ACP benefit was granted with effect from 01.10.2013, upon completion of 10 years of service
- Second ACP benefit became due on 01.10.2019, upon completion of 16 years of service
- The respondents withheld the second ACP benefit citing pending SLP(C) No. 031566-2018 in the Supreme Court, titled ‘The State of Haryana vs. Yogesh Tyagi and others’
- The SLP challenged the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014, which applied to a different class of employees
- The petitioners were not parties to the Yogesh Tyagi litigation
- The policy under which the petitioners were regularized (2003) was not the subject of challenge in Yogesh Tyagi’s case
- On 26.05.2025, the respondents issued orders (Annexure Mark ‘X’) granting the second ACP benefit, but subject to the final outcome of the pending SLP in the Supreme Court
- Similarly situated employees, including Sh. Krishan Lal, Sh. Mange Ram, and Smt. Suman Lata, were granted full retiral benefits and second ACP without any such condition
Procedural History
- 01.10.2003: Petitioners regularized under Government Policy dated 01.10.2003
- 01.10.2013: First ACP benefit granted
- 01.10.2019: Second ACP benefit became due
- 2018: SLP(C) No. 031566-2018 filed in Supreme Court challenging Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014
- 04.11.2022: Order issued withholding second ACP benefit pending outcome of Yogesh Tyagi’s case
- 26.05.2025: Respondents issued orders granting second ACP benefit conditionally, subject to final outcome of SLP(C) No. 031566-2018
- 2022: CWP-29795-2022 filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 2024: CWP-307-2024 filed with identical claims
- 23.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that their regularization under the 2003 policy is legally and factually distinct from the 2014 policy under challenge. They relied on Vinod Kumar v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (decided 26.02.2026), where the same court held that withholding ACP benefits on account of unrelated litigation violates Articles 14 and 16. They emphasized that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against them.
Respondents: Contended that the second ACP benefit could be withheld pending final adjudication in Yogesh Tyagi’s case, as the matter involved a broader policy framework affecting state finances and administrative consistency.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 04.11.2022 and the conditional orders dated 26.05.2025
- Directing the respondents to grant the second ACP benefit w.e.f. 01.10.2019 without any condition
- Payment of arrears of second ACP benefit with interest at 12% per annum from 01.10.2019
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the denial of second Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit to employees regularized under the 2003 Regularization Policy, on the ground of pending litigation concerning a different 2014 policy, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16. They argued that the 2003 policy and the 2014 policy are distinct in scope, eligibility, and implementation. The petitioners were not parties to the Yogesh Tyagi litigation, nor did their regularization arise from the challenged policy. They cited Vinod Kumar v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (26.02.2026), where this Court held that withholding ACP benefits due to unrelated litigation is arbitrary and violative of equality. They emphasized that similarly placed employees had received full benefits without conditions.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the pending SLP in the Supreme Court raised substantial questions regarding the legality of regularization policies in Haryana, and that granting benefits conditionally was a prudent administrative measure to avoid financial liability if the 2014 policy were struck down. They contended that the condition was temporary and not a denial of rights.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the pending SLP in Yogesh Tyagi’s case could justify withholding benefits from petitioners regularized under a different policy. The Court emphasized that the 2003 policy and the 2014 policy are separate instruments with different dates, objectives, and beneficiary classes. The petitioners were neither parties to the litigation nor affected by its outcome.
"The petitioners were neither party before the Division Bench of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra), nor before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, the policy challenged in the said case was different from the policy under which the petitioners have been regularized. Therefore, reliance placed by the respondents on Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra) is misconceived and contrary to the facts of the present cases."
The Court noted that the respondents had already granted the second ACP benefit to similarly placed employees, including Sh. Krishan Lal, Sh. Mange Ram, and Smt. Suman Lata, without any condition. This established a clear precedent of equal treatment. The Court held that the condition imposed in the order dated 26.05.2025 - making payment subject to the outcome of an unrelated case - was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14.
The Court further observed that the respondents had failed to provide any rational basis for distinguishing the petitioners from other similarly situated employees who received full benefits. The withholding of benefits without any fault or disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners was held to be an abuse of power.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court set aside the condition imposed in the order dated 26.05.2025, directing that the second ACP benefit granted to the petitioners must be paid unconditionally, without any reference to the outcome of SLP(C) No. 031566-2018. The respondents were directed to pay arrears of the second ACP benefit w.e.f. 01.10.2019, along with interest at 12% per annum until realization. All pending applications were disposed of. The respondents were further directed not to seek any undertaking from the petitioners conditioning payment on the outcome of the pending Supreme Court litigation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
ACP Benefits Cannot Be Conditional on Unrelated Litigation
- Practitioners must challenge any administrative order that ties service benefits to the outcome of litigation involving a different policy or class of employees
- The principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 applies even when the state claims administrative caution
- Conditional grants of benefits, even if labeled "temporary," are invalid if they lack legal basis and discriminate against similarly placed employees
Distinct Policies Must Be Treated Separately
- Government policies with different dates, eligibility criteria, and implementation frameworks are legally distinct
- A challenge to one policy cannot be used to deny rights under another, even if both relate to regularization
- Administrative bodies must maintain clear records of which policy applies to which employee and act accordingly
Equal Treatment Must Be Demonstrated, Not Assumed
- If similarly situated employees receive full benefits without conditions, denying the same to others constitutes discrimination
- The burden shifts to the state to justify differential treatment - mere reference to pending litigation is insufficient
- Practitioners should compile lists of similarly placed employees who received benefits as evidence in writ petitions
