The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that contractual employees completing three years of continuous service are entitled to regularization under the Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016, provided judicial precedents support their claim. The Court did not directly order regularization but mandated a reasoned decision on a pending legal notice, reinforcing procedural fairness and adherence to binding judgments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a group of contractual Firemen, were appointed on 29.06.2012 by the Municipal Committee Samrala, Punjab. They have been continuously employed in the same capacity since that date without any break. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria under two distinct regulatory frameworks - the 2011 regularization policy and the 2016 Act - they have not been regularized. The petitioners contend that their case is identical to those previously decided by this Court in multiple judgments, which have consistently held that such employees must be regularized upon completion of three years of service.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were appointed as Firemen on 29.06.2012 on a contractual basis
- They have rendered continuous, unbroken service since that date, exceeding 13 years as of the judgment date
- The State of Punjab issued a regularization policy dated 18.03.2011, Clause 2(i) of which provided that contractual employees were eligible for regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2011 or after completion of three years of service, whichever is later
- The petitioners completed three years of service on 29.06.2015, thereby becoming eligible under the 2011 policy
- The Punjab Ad hoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees Welfare Act, 2016 (‘2016 Act’) was enacted on 15.07.2016, which mandates regularization of employees after three years of service
- The Nabha Improvement Trust recommended the petitioners’ regularization under the 2016 Act vide resolution dated 30.12.2016
- The petitioners served a legal notice dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) demanding regularization and benefits, which remains unanswered
- The Court has previously held in multiple judgments that similar employees are entitled to regularization: Sukhjad Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-11427-2016, decided 19.12.2018), Manjeet Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-10146-2023, decided 25.08.2025), and Akash Sharma v. State of Punjab (CWP-12434-2022, decided 13.02.2026)
- In Akash Sharma, this Court held on 13.02.2026 that the 2016 Act remains enforceable despite non-repeal of earlier policies
Procedural History
- 29.06.2012: Petitioners appointed as contractual Firemen
- 18.03.2011: State issues regularization policy
- 15.07.2016: Punjab Ad hoc Employees Welfare Act, 2016 enacted
- 30.12.2016: Nabha Improvement Trust recommends regularization
- 29.06.2015: Petitioners complete three years of service
- 25.02.2026: Legal notice served on Respondent No. 2
- 08.04.2026: Present writ petition filed and decided
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argue that their continuous service since 2012, completion of three years under the 2011 policy, recommendation under the 2016 Act, and binding precedents entitle them to regularization. They assert that the State’s inaction violates principles of equality, non-arbitrariness, and legitimate expectation.
Respondents: Did not file a written reply. No counter-affidavit or opposition was submitted before the Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing:
- Regularization of their services as Firemen
- Counting of past service from 29.06.2012 for all benefits including pension, increments, and seniority
- Grant of arrears and other entitlements as per the judgments in Sukhjad Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Akash Sharma
Key Judicial Precedents Cited
- Sukhjad Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-11427-2016, decided 19.12.2018): Held that contractual employees completing three years are entitled to regularization
- Manjeet Singh v. State of Punjab (CWP-10146-2023, decided 25.08.2025): Reaffirmed the principle and directed regularization
- Akash Sharma v. State of Punjab (CWP-12434-2022, decided 13.02.2026): Confirmed the continued enforceability of the 2016 Act
The Legal Issue
Whether the State is legally obligated to decide a legal notice seeking regularization of contractual employees who have completed three years of service under the Punjab Ad hoc Employees Welfare Act, 2016, in light of binding precedents of this Court, and whether such a decision must be reasoned and issued within a stipulated timeframe.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners’ case is indistinguishable from those decided in Sukhjad Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Akash Sharma. They emphasized that the 2016 Act remains in force and imposes a statutory duty to regularize employees after three years of service. The recommendation by the Nabha Improvement Trust on 30.12.2016 further strengthens their claim. The legal notice dated 25.02.2026 was a final opportunity for the State to act, and its silence amounts to arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners do not seek immediate regularization but a reasoned decision on their notice.
For the Respondent
No arguments were presented by the State. No written submission or affidavit was filed. The Court noted the absence of any opposition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioners’ service history, eligibility under the 2011 policy, recommendation under the 2016 Act, and the existence of binding precedents create a compelling case for a reasoned decision. The Court emphasized that while it cannot directly order regularization in the absence of a final decision by the competent authority, it can and must ensure that the State discharges its legal and constitutional obligations.
"The petitioners have been in continuous service for over a decade, their case is covered by multiple judgments of this Court, and the 2016 Act remains enforceable. The State cannot remain silent on a legal notice that invokes these settled principles."
The Court held that the principle of legitimate expectation, coupled with the binding nature of its own precedents, imposes a duty on the State to consider the notice with an open mind and in accordance with law. The absence of a reply or decision constitutes a failure to act fairly and transparently. The Court further noted that the 2016 Act, though not explicitly invoked in the notice, forms the statutory backdrop against which the claim must be evaluated.
The Court rejected the notion that the petitioners must exhaust further remedies, as the legal notice was the final step before approaching the Court. The Court also clarified that the precedents cited are not merely persuasive but binding on the same bench and lower authorities within its jurisdiction.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- Respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the legal notice dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) in light of the judgments in Sukhjad Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Akash Sharma
- A speaking order, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, must be passed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order
- The decision on the legal notice shall be communicated to the petitioners
- If the petitioners are found entitled to regularization or any other benefit, the same shall be granted forthwith by the competent authority
What This Means For Similar Cases
A Legal Notice Triggers a Statutory Duty
- Practitioners representing contractual employees must serve a formal legal notice before approaching the High Court under Article 226
- The notice must explicitly reference applicable statutes (e.g., 2016 Act) and binding judgments
- Silence on such a notice constitutes a violation of natural justice and can be challenged as arbitrariness under Article 14
Binding Precedents Bind the State, Not Just Courts
- When multiple judgments of the same High Court have consistently held that employees with three years of service are entitled to regularization, the State cannot refuse to apply those principles
- Authorities must proactively apply such precedents even if not specifically cited in internal files
- Failure to do so invites writ jurisdiction and adverse costs
Time-Bound Decisions Are Non-Negotiable
- Courts are increasingly imposing strict timelines (e.g., eight weeks) for decision-making on regularization claims
- Delays beyond such timelines may result in contempt proceedings or direct orders for regularization
- Practitioners should track compliance deadlines and file compliance petitions if orders are not implemented
