The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (CWP-26643-2025 and connected matters) pronounced on 23.12.2025, affirmed that the refusal to regularise long-serving daily-wage employees of the Forest Department, who had rendered continuous service for twenty-five to thirty years, constitutes an unfair labour practice and contravenes constitutional guarantees of fairness, equality, and dignity of labour.
FACTS
The writ petitions were instituted by Manoj Kumar and other similarly situated workmen (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioners’) against the State of Haryana and its Forest Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondents’) contesting the denial of regularization and other pertinent service benefits despite of their long, continuous, and uninterrupted employment on a daily-wage and muster-roll basis. Between the early 1990s and the early 2000s, the petitioners were engaged throughout several Haryana Forest Divisions. Their obligations included plantations, nursery maintenance, soil conservation, safeguarding forest land, watering and caring for saplings, and other allied forestry operations which encompassed the fundamental and perennial tasks of the department. The Petitioners asserted that their engagement involved performing crucial departmental tasks continuously throughout the year rather than being project-specific or seasonal.
The Petitioners were denied pay scales, employment security, pensions, gratuities, and other statutory benefits despite their decades of service because they were never regularized. Over time, the State issued regulations for the regularization of contractual and daily-wage workers who fulfilled the necessary tenure requirements. However, the Petitioners were either refused benefits or excluded from these programs due to technical issues including the lack of authorized positions, purported sporadic service interruptions, or the categorization of their employment as seasonal or temporary. They argued that these justifications were little more than cover for a system of “permanent temporariness,” which extracts long-term labour without providing regular job benefits. They also pointed out that a number of junior employees who had been hired for shorter periods of time had been regularized, exhibiting discriminatory and arbitrary treatment.
The Petitioners, aggrieved by this invoked the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming that the Respondents’ actions violated the constitutional guarantees of equality, fairness, and labor dignity and constituted unfair labour practices and arbitrary exploitation. They argued that decades of continuous and essential work established a genuine expectation of absorption into permanent employment, and they sought directives for regularization along with arrears of pay, interest, and pensionary and retirement benefits.
ISSUES
- Whether the continued engagement of the Petitioners as daily-wage or muster-roll workers for nearly 25-30 years, while performing essential and perennial functions of the Forest Department, amounts to an unfair labour practice?
- Whether the State of Haryana was justified in denying regularisation to the Petitioners on grounds such as non-availability of sanctioned posts, alleged breaks in service, or classification of their work as temporary or seasonal?
- Whether long-term continuous service of the Petitioners creates a legitimate expectation of regularisation under the relevant State policies?
- Whether the denial of regularisation and attendant service benefits violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Petitioners contended that their long-term employment on a daily-wage and muster-roll basis, regardless of carrying out perennial and indispensable tasks, constituted an obvious instance of unfair labour practices. They argued that the State maintained a system of “permanent temporariness” by resisting regularization and the perks that went along with it, taking on permanent work without providing statutory security, compensation, or retirement benefits. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as cases like Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545, were cited to support the claim that arbitrary State action cannot make the right to livelihood and dignity of labor illusory. The Petitioners further invoked State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and M.L. Kesari v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 9 SCC 247, arguing that, despite technical flaws in initial appointment procedures, employees who consistently perform permanent functions for more than ten years generate a legitimate expectation of regularization. They noted that the exclusion of the petitioners constituted hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 and that junior employees in similar circumstances had been regularized under State rules.
The Respondents, on the other hand contested the petitions on the grounds that the Petitioners had no inherent right to regularization because they were only employed as muster roll or daily wage labourers. Courts could not overturn these procedural restrictions, and appointments to permanent service ought to take place in compliance with sanctioned positions and statutory recruitment standards. The argument that regularizing irregularly engaged personnel would violate the constitutional system under Articles 14 and 16 was based on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (Supra). The State additionally argued that a finding of continuous service was not possible because a number of Petitioners experienced sporadic gaps in service and their engagement was dependent on funding and work availability. Administrative and financial factors were also emphasized, along with the argument that courts should not carelessly interfere with executive policy decisions pertaining to regularization.
DECISION AND FINDINGS
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, after a detailed examination of the record, pleadings, and submissions advanced by the parties, allowed the writ petitions and directed regularisation of the petitioners under the applicable regularisation policy. The Court observed that the petitioners had been employed for about 25 to 30 years on a daily wage and muster roll basis, carrying out continuous and perpetual duties which were not limited to any project-specific, seasonal, or short-term labour. The Court noted that the Petitioners’ involvement and the tasks they performed demonstrated a persistent need for labour for crucial departmental operations, placing their case under the purview of regularization policies.
The Court emphasized that “the mere withdrawal of policy cannot operate to extinguish accrued and crystallized rights of employees who had already rendered long, continuous service and had otherwise become eligible for consideration for regularization prior thereto” when evaluating the legal impact of long continuous service. This logic is consistent with the idea that regularization eligibility cannot be overcome retroactively by policy withdrawal once it has been earned.
The Court further found that the Petitioners were entitled to consideration for regularization in accordance with the applicable policy due to their continuity of service, which was established both factually and through past judicial recognition. The Court stated that the Petitioners’ prolonged and continuous employment “is good enough and a strong reason” for regularization and that it is against the spirit and aim of labor protection to keep such workers in perpetually temporary status.
The Court noted that accrued entitlements could not be superseded by administrative or technical reasons, such as the lack of sanctioned positions or the policy’s withdrawal, when addressing the Respondents’ claims that regularization could not be directed. It made clear that denying regularization on these grounds would be capricious, particularly in cases where employees in comparable circumstances had already received regularization under the same regulations.
The Court stipulated that the petitioners be regularized under the applicable regularization policies (such as the Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 and its amendments), with all consequential benefits, including arrears and retirement benefits, after quashing the contested orders that had rejected the petitioners’ claims for regularization. The Court emphasized that for employees whose service has been judicially recognized and who meet the policy criteria, the principle of continuity translates into substantive rights rather than being purely symbolic.
AMLEGALS REMARKS
The judgment underscores a fundamental tenet of modern labour law jurisprudence: prolonged, continuous service performing essential functions cannot be disregarded on technicalities to deny workers’ rights and benefits. Instead than relying on impersonal welfare reasoning, worker protection must be based on concrete proof of service and the type of tasks completed. The Court’s emphasis on the enduring and essential nature of the Petitioners’ responsibilities illustrates the judiciary’s role in resolving structural injustices resulting from “permanent temporariness,” which is the continuation of temporary employment despite the extraction of work of a permanent nature.
Importantly, in accordance with Articles 14 and 21, the High Court demonstrated a principled balance between State administrative reasons and workers’ rights by rejecting administrative arguments like the unavailability of sanctioned posts or sporadic breaks. Reliance on precedents like State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (Supra) and M.L. Kesari v. State of Karnataka (Supra) ensures judicial consistency while providing nuanced, case-specific reasoning rather than a blanket approach to temporary employees.
The decision draws attention to fundamental conflicts in temporary and contract labour arrangements in government agencies on a larger scale. It indicates that long-term participation in permanent roles without appropriate regularization may be considered unfair labour practices and subject to legal investigation. The ruling emphasizes that selective treatment or reliance on technical grounds may constitute arbitrary conduct and offers assistance to policymakers in the formulation of regularization strategies. Overall, the Court’s reasoning strikes a balance between upholding operational and financial limits, protecting labour rights and equity, and emphasizing that justice in labour disputes must take into account both legal entitlement and the practical realities of employment.
In case of any query, please feel free to reach out to us at mridusha.guha@amlegals.com