Premium

Punjab and Haryana HC flags ‘institutional exploitation’ of part-time sweeper working since 1986, seeks reply from Haryana

The Punjab and Haryana High Court says denial of regularisation after nearly four decades offends constitutional principles of fairness and social justice.

2 min readJan 14, 2026 05:14 PM IST

The High Court expressed concern over denying regularisation to a sweeper working since 1986. (Source: Express Archives)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday expressed strong concern over the continued non-regularisation of a part-time sweeper who has been working with the Haryana government since 1986, observing that extracting labour for almost four decades without granting regular status prima facie amounts to “institutional exploitation”.

Issuing notice of motion in a writ petition filed by Bir Singh alias Bhira, Justice Sandeep Moudgil noted that the petitioner had devoted the better part of his life to the service of the respondent establishment and had been continuously engaged as a part-time sweeper for nearly 40 years. The court recorded that his duties were neither sporadic nor casual, but perennial and indispensable to the functioning of the establishment, and that his service record remained unblemished.

The court observed that the continued denial of regularisation, despite long and uninterrupted service, struck at the heart of fairness, equity and social justice, and was incompatible with Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution. It underlined that the state, as a model employer, could not be permitted to benefit from the labour of a workman for decades and then disclaim responsibility on technical grounds.

Justice Moudgil further remarked that disregarding the contribution of such a worker was a departure from the constitutional vision of a humane and socialist state committed to the dignity of labour and substantive equality. The court said its conscience was “deeply shaken” by the manner in which the petitioner had been treated despite a lifetime of public service.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Deepak Sonak argued that Bir Singh had crossed the prime of his life serving the State with sincerity and without any adverse remark on his conduct or integrity.

On behalf of the state, Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan put in appearance and assured the court that the petitioner’s case would be considered afresh, positively and in the light of the court’s observations and settled judicial pronouncements.

The court directed the state to file its reply at least one week before the next date of hearing, with an advance copy to the petitioner’s counsel, and adjourned the matter to January 31.