Major Singh & Anr. vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.09.2013 (P-3) passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularizing the services of the petitioners who are working as Daily Wager/Workcharge employees with the respondents on daily wages in pursuance to the various policies issued from time to time.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of the order dated 13.07.2026, whereby petitioner No.2, namely, Gurjant Singh, at Sr. No.11 therein, has been granted the benefit of regularization. However, it is submitted that the said regularization has been granted to petitioner No.2 under the Policy of 2003, whereas petitioner No.1, who was similarly placed, came to be regularized during the pendency of the present petition under the Policy of 2011, vide order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure R-1).

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents between the two petitioners is wholly unwarranted, as both the petitioners are similarly situated and had been rendering their services under identical circumstances. It is contended that once petitioner No.1 has been granted the benefit of regularization under the Policy of 2011 during the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner No.2, being similarly situated, cannot legitimately be subjected to a different treatment by granting him regularization under the Policy of 2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order dated 13.07.2026 placed on record today, whereby petitioner No.2 has been regularized under the Policy of 2003, does not address the grievance raised in the present petition. According to learned counsel, petitioner No.2 is also entitled to be considered for regularization under the Policy of 2011, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner No.1, who is similarly placed, has already been accorded such benefit.

Learned State counsel, despite opportunity, has not been able to dispute the factual position emerging from Annexure R-1, nor has any material been placed on record to demonstrate any distinguishing feature between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 which could justify their being treated differently for the purpose of regularization.

This Court finds considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The respondents, having themselves extended the benefit of regularization to petitioner No.1 under the Policy of 2011 vide order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure R-1), cannot, in the absence of any valid and discernible distinction, deny the same treatment to petitioner No.2, who is stated to be similarly situated. Any such differential treatment would offend the fundamental principle of equality and equal treatment in service matters.

Galdhan Sangai Vs. University of Delhi – 2015 Supreme (Del) 317, wherein it has been observed that any arbitrary or artificial differential treatment among similarly situated employees in matters of regularization violates the fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India when an employer regularizes a group of workers, it cannot deny the same benefit to other identically placed employees who came through the same recruitment channel.

The subsequent order dated 13.07.2026, produced before this Court, whereby petitioner No.2 has been regularized under the Policy of 2003, does not cure the grievance of the petitioner, as the claim in the present petition is for parity with petitioner No.1 and for consideration of his case under the Policy of 2011. The respondents have also failed to place on record any cogent reason or legal justification for applying the Policy of 2003 to petitioner No.2 while applying the Policy of 2011 to petitioner No.1.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend to petitioner No.2, namely, Gurjant Singh, the benefit of regularization under the Policy of 2011, at par with petitioner No.1, instead of treating his case under the Policy of 2003.

The respondents shall accordingly pass the consequential order and extend all consequential service and monetary benefits flowing therefrom, in accordance with law.

The necessary exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.