Surinder Pal Singh & Anr. vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer in this application is for fixing the actual date of hearing in the main petition.

Learned counsel accordingly submits that the present writ petition had earlier been adjourned sine die awaiting the outcome of the SLP No.15325-2022, which stands decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure A-2).

In the light of above and the reasons mentioned in the application as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is allowed.

Main case is taken on board.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents/authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner from deemed date alongwith all consequential service benefits in terms of State Regularization Policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-3).

The petitioners, namely Surinder Pal Singh and Harinder Singh, were engaged as Drivers on contract basis against sanctioned and subsisting posts through due process. Petitioner No.1, Surinder Pal Singh, was appointed vide order dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) and joined duty on 01.12.2006, whereas petitioner No.2, Harinder Singh, was appointed vide letter dated 07.02.2008 (Annexure P-2) and joined duty on 08.02.2008. Their contractual services were extended from time to time without any break and they continued to discharge duties against the same sanctioned posts. The Government of Punjab issued the policy dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) providing for regularisation of eligible contractual employees, and the petitioners claimed consideration thereunder upon completion of the requisite period of service. The case of the petitioners was thereafter considered by the competent authorities and the Board, including under Resolution Item No. 62.10 of the 62^nd Meeting held on 21.11.2013, wherein their regularisation was recommended. Pursuant thereto, the resolution/communication concerning regularisation of the petitioners was forwarded vide communication dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners had also submitted representations seeking regularisation, which were acknowledged and forwarded by the concerned authority vide communication dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure P-8). The Government communication dated 25.11.2011 along with notification dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-9) further dealt with regularisation of employees working on contract basis. Despite the aforesaid policy, representations and recommendations, no final decision was taken on the claim of the petitioners, compelling them to serve a legal notice dated 12.11.2015 (Annexure P-10) seeking regularisation from the due date along with consequential service benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that despite their continued service against sanctioned posts, eligibility under the policy dated 18.03.2011 and recommendations made in their favour, their claim for regularisation was not finally decided, they have placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 11427 of 2015 dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure A-1) , wherein similarly situated employees working against regular posts and having completed three years of service were held entitled to regularisation under the Government policy dated 18.03.2011. The Court directed regularisation with consequential benefits from the date on which the petitioners therein completed three years of service.

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment has since attained finality. The Letters Patent Appeal No.516 of 2020 preferre against it was dismissed on 28.03.2022, and the Special Leave Petition, being SLP (C) No. 15325 of 2022, also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.05.2025 (Annexure A-2). Consequently, the counsel argues that the legal position declared in the said judgment is no longer open to challenge and the present case, being covered on facts, policy and law, deserves to be decided on the same terms.

Learned State counsel does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and rather submits that the case of the petitioners is indeed covered by the judgment of this court passed in CWP-11427-2015 dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure A-1).

Having perused the material placed on record and in view of the submissions made before this Court and the judgment dated 19.12.2018 passed in CWP No.11427 of 2015 which covers the issue involved in the present petition and directs grant of the benefit of regularisation in accordance with the policy dated 18.03.2011 and has attained finality having been upheld at the stage of Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court., this Court finds that the claim of the petitioners deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment dated 19.12.2018 passed in CWP No.11427 of 2015. The respondents/competent authorities are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in accordance with the Government policy dated 18.03.2011, with all consequential service benefits from the respective dates on which the petitioners completed three years of contractual service. The necessary orders in this regard shall be passed by the competent authority and the consequential benefits flowing from such regularisation shll be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The monetary benefits and arrears so released is ordered to carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accrual till it’s actual realisation.

The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.

Pending application(s), if any shall be disposed off.