HC orders regularisation of Haryana power staff

Justice Brar slams 30 years of ‘tendentious exploitation’, sets seven-point plan to enforce compliance

Chandigarh | September 10, 2025 07:39 AM IST

he court called this excuse “untenable” and relied on Supreme Court rulings that bar governments from using administrative constraints to deny regularisation. (File Photo)

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered Haryana’s power corporations to regularise the services of long-serving temporary employees within six weeks, warning that failure to do so would invite contempt proceedings. The court said the workers, some serving since 1995, had been “forced to litigate nine times” over three decades despite earlier rulings in their favour.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar quashed the rejection of their claims and ruled that if no order is passed within six weeks, the petitioners will be “deemed regularised” with full benefits, seniority, and arrears on par with a colleague, Vir Bahadur, who was regularised last year.

“The State, being a constitutional employer, cannot be allowed to exploit its temporary employees under the garb of lack of sanctioned posts or inability of the employees to meet educational qualifications for regular posts, when they have been consistently serving its instrumentality for a significant time,” the court said.

The petitioners, appointed on ad hoc and temporary basis since 1995, argued that despite a 2005 High Court order and a March 2025 directive to reconsider their case, their claims were rejected in May 2025 citing non-availability of posts. The court called this excuse “untenable” and relied on Supreme Court rulings that bar governments from using administrative constraints to deny regularisation.

Justice Brar condemned the “trend of prolonged ad hocism” in Punjab and Haryana, observing that policies are often framed to bypass court orders. “Extended ad-hocism of keeping daily wage workers or contractual employees on temporary rolls for decades while extracting regular work is not only unconstitutional but undermines equality and dignity,” the judgment stated.

Quoting a recent Supreme Court decision in Dharam Singh vs State of UP (2025), the judge said:

“The State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.”

Story continues below this ad

Calling out “habitual administrative negligence, indifference, and deliberate delay,” the court said such practices “erode public trust in justice.” To ensure compliance and accountability, Justice Brar issued seven directives for all state instrumentalities:

# Time-bound compliance: All court directions on service matters must be implemented within the stipulated time frame.
# Accountability mechanism: Nodal officers should be appointed in each department to monitor execution of judicial orders.
# Periodic reporting: Departments must file status reports before the court in cases where compliance exceeds two months.
# Digital transparency tools: An online portal should track implementation of court orders and allow employees to monitor progress. Service records should be digitised to reduce procedural delays.
# Pre-litigation grievance redressal: Internal mechanisms should allow employees to resolve issues without repeated litigation, especially when matters are already settled in law.
# Training and awareness: Regular capacity-building for officers on the constitutional importance of enforcing court orders and consequences of default.
# Performance appraisals: Compliance with judicial directives should be factored into annual evaluations of administrative officers.

The court stressed that these measures are essential to break a cycle where employees face “mental anguish and financial uncertainty” due to endless file movement and repeated court battles. It warned that continued defiance of court orders would lead to contempt action under Article 215 of the Constitution.

From the homepage