Introduction:
In a judgment that powerfully blends constitutional doctrine with India’s civilisational ethos, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that governance in a welfare State cannot be reduced to mere administrative convenience at the cost of human dignity. Decided by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, the case arose from a batch of writ petitions led by Joginder v. State of Haryana and Others, where long-serving daily wage workers sought regularisation of their services after decades of uninterrupted work. The principal petitioner had been engaged since 1994 as a Water Pump Operator/Tube-well Pump Operator and had served the State continuously for nearly thirty years with a satisfactory service record. Despite the Haryana Government having framed multiple regularisation policies over the years, and despite similarly situated employees having been granted the benefit of regularisation, the petitioner remained trapped in the status of a daily wager. His representation dated 19 September 2025 was not decided, leaving him with no option but to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. What makes this judgment stand apart is not merely the relief granted, but the Court’s deep engagement with constitutional morality, service jurisprudence, and the ancient Indian concept of Rajdharma, through which the Court articulated why the State cannot indefinitely extract permanent work from workers while keeping them in a state of perpetual insecurity.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that they had been engaged by the respondent-State for decades on daily wage or contractual terms, yet the nature of their work was permanent, perennial, and essential to public functioning. In the lead case, the petitioner had been working continuously since 1994 as a Water Pump Operator, discharging duties vital to the supply of water, a core public service. It was argued that the petitioner’s service record was unblemished and satisfactory, and that there were no disciplinary proceedings or adverse remarks against him. The petitioners emphasised that the Haryana Government itself had, from time to time, acknowledged the injustice faced by such workers by framing regularisation policies in 1993, 1996, 2003, and 2011. Under these policies, many similarly situated employees had been regularised, yet the petitioners’ cases were either ignored or mechanically rejected.
The petitioners submitted that repeatedly branding them as “daily wage” or “contractual” employees was a mere change of label, as the State continued to take uninterrupted benefit of their labour for decades. Such conduct, it was argued, amounted to arbitrariness and exploitation, offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s clarification in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (2010), which explained that Uma Devi (2006) does not prohibit regularisation of employees who have rendered long and continuous service against available posts and whose initial engagement was not illegal. Strong reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), where it was categorically held that no employee can be kept temporary indefinitely and that prolonged service creates a legitimate right to fair consideration for regularisation.
The petitioners further argued that the State cannot be allowed to profit from its own inaction. If sanctioned posts were not created despite decades of work being taken, it was an administrative failure of the State, not a fault of the employees. The petitioners urged the Court to look beyond technical objections and test the State’s conduct on the anvil of constitutional ethics, fairness, and the welfare character of the Indian State.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
The State of Haryana opposed the writ petitions on multiple grounds. It was contended that the petitioners were never appointed against sanctioned posts and did not possess the prescribed qualifications required under the relevant service rules. The State further alleged that there were breaks in service and that the petitions suffered from delay and laches, given that the petitioners had approached the Court after several years.
Relying on landmark judgments such as State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava, and Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, the State argued that courts cannot direct regularisation in violation of constitutional norms governing public employment. It was submitted that regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that any direction to regularise would amount to bypassing the constitutional requirement of recruitment through a fair and transparent process. The State maintained that daily wage or contractual engagement, by its very nature, does not confer any right to permanence, and that financial and administrative constraints prevented the creation of sanctioned posts.
The State also argued that granting relief to the petitioners would open the floodgates for similar claims and place an undue burden on the public exchequer. It was urged that the Court should exercise restraint and adhere strictly to the ratio laid down in Uma Devi, which cautioned against judicial interference in matters of regularisation.
Court’s Judgment:
Rejecting the State’s contentions, the High Court undertook an extensive and nuanced analysis of service jurisprudence, constitutional principles, and the ethical foundations of Indian governance. Justice Sandeep Moudgil reconciled Uma Devi (2006) with subsequent judgments, particularly M.L. Kesari (2010), and clarified that while illegal or unconstitutional appointments cannot be regularised, employees who have rendered long, continuous service performing perennial duties are entitled to fair consideration for regularisation. The Court emphasised that Uma Devi cannot be weaponised as a licence for exploitation by the State.
In a strikingly evocative passage, the Court anchored its reasoning in the civilisational idea of Rajdharma, observing that Indian constitutionalism is not divorced from moral and ethical values. Drawing from ancient Indian texts and the Bhagavad Gita, the Court highlighted concepts such as nyaya (justice), anrishamsya (non-cruelty), and lokasangraha (the welfare and stability of society), to underline that the ruler’s foremost duty is fairness and protection of those who sustain the State’s functioning. These principles, the Court said, serve as “interpretive lamps” illuminating why a welfare State cannot, in good conscience or good law, keep citizens in endless precarity while extracting uninterrupted service from them.
The Court categorically held that repeatedly labelling workers as “daily wage” or “contractual” while extracting permanent work amounts to arbitrariness and exploitation, directly violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It observed that Article 14 and 16 do not merely regulate entry into public service but govern the entire life cycle of public employment. The Court further held that service jurisprudence recognises a fundamental principle that the State cannot be allowed to profit from its own inaction. When the State pleads the absence of sanctioned posts after extracting work for decades, it is not describing a natural inevitability but confessing an administrative choice.
Strong reliance was placed on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), where the Supreme Court held that no employee can be kept temporary indefinitely and that prolonged service creates a legitimate expectation of regularisation. The Court also referred to Nihal Singh, where the Supreme Court directed the State to create posts and regularise employees, holding that Uma Devi does not sanction exploitation. Applying these principles, the High Court found that the petitioners had rendered continuous and uninterrupted service for nearly three decades, were prima facie eligible under multiple regularisation policies, and yet were denied fair consideration by the State.
Consequently, the Court set aside the rejection of the petitioners’ claims and directed the State of Haryana to regularise their services under the applicable policy in force when they first became eligible, including the policies of 1993, 1996, 2003, and 2011. The judgment thus stands as a robust assertion that constitutional ethics, fairness, and the welfare character of the State must prevail over technicalities and administrative inertia.