Bhagvad Gita Reminds Public Power That Action Must Serve Social Stability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Regularisation Of Daily Wagers

While directing regularisation of daily wagers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court remarked that the Bhagvad Gita reminds public power that action must serve social stability and the common good, not merely administrative convenience.

The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions seeking direction to regularise the services in view of the regularization policy of the Haryana Government and further to pay the consequential benefits from due date.

A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, “There is, finally, a moral vocabulary that is not foreign to Indian constitutionalism and it runs parallel to our civilisational idea of Rajdharma that the ruler’s foremost duty is protection and fairness to those who sustain the State’s functioning. Our ancient texts repeatedly place upon the sovereign an obligation to act with nyaya (justice), anrishamsya (non-cruelty), and balanced governance and the idea of lokasangraha as discussed in the Bhagvad Gita’s reminds public power that action must serve social stability and the common good, not merely administrative convenience.”

The Bench added that they are interpretive lamps that illuminate why a welfare State cannot, in good conscience or good law, keep citizens in endless precarity while taking uninterrupted benefit of their service.

Senior Advocates Ravinder Malik and Vikas Chatrath represented the Petitioners, while Addl. AG Deepak Balyan represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

In the lead case, the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent department as a daily wage worker in the year 1994. From the date of his initial engagement, he continued to work with the department on the post of Water Pump Operator/Tube-well Pump Operator and the work and conduct of the Petitioner remained satisfactory throughout his service. The Government of Haryana, from time to time, issued various policies for regularization of services of casual and daily wage employees, including policies. These policies prescribed eligibility conditions relating to length of service, continuity of service, nature of appointment, availability of sanctioned posts, and other requirements for regularization.

The Petitioner continued to remain engaged as a daily wager and his services were not regularized under any of the said policies. From time to time, the services of certain other daily wage employees working in the department were regularized under the applicable policies. However, the Petitioner’s case for regularization was not considered by the department even after the Petitioner approached them several times. Ultimately, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the department, seeking regularization of his services in terms of the regularization policies of the State Government. No final decision was communicated to him on the said representation. Being aggrieved by the non-regularisation of his services and the inaction on his representation, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, noted, “Judicial review in service jurisprudence is not confined to the margins of administrative discretion. Where State action results in unequal civil consequences, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the form but the substance of the decision-making process. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that discretion in public employment is structured by constitutional discipline, and cannot be exercised to the detriment of equality.”

The Court said that in a Constitutional democracy, the State does not function as a private employer free to hire and discharge personnel at will; rather, it acts as a trustee of public power.

“Where ad hoc employees have, over successive years, shouldered the routine by keeping essential services moving, the law will not permit the State to consume their labour as if it were an endlessly renewable commodity, and then disclaim responsibility by simply labeling them “contractual”. The Constitution of our country looks past nomenclature, and asks the harder question as to what is the true character of the engagement, and what does fairness require of a welfare State that has enjoyed benefit of such service for a considerably long period of time”, it added.

The Court remarked that the common administrative stratagem is not merely to deny regularization, but to deny even consideration, by repeatedly changing the description of engagement i.e., daily wage yesterday, contractual today, “project staff” tomorrow, while the work remains perennial.

“Despite the existence of multiple regularization policies and despite the regularization of similarly situated employees, the petitioner’s claim was neither meaningfully considered nor decided, even upon a formal representation. Such inaction of considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, coupled with selective application of policy, bears the imprint of arbitrariness and defeats the very object underlying the constitutional mandate elucidated in Uma Devi(supra) and M.L. Kesari(supra)”, it observed.

The Court was of the opinion that the State must not, through an arbitrary exercise of its Constitutional powers, inflict injustice upon members of the lower strata of society who have served it for many years and would otherwise suffer undue hardship.

“The Court has repeatedly underscored that State should not perpetuate ad-hoc or contractual employment by issuing regularization schemes at their convenience. Instead, as a one-time measure, only those employees who have completed ten years of continuous service are to be considered for regularization. … Individuals cannot be left to serve indefinitely on daily-wage, contractual, work-charged, or part-time posts without a fair opportunity for regularization”, it emphasised.

The Court further said that a welfare State cannot run core public functions on the spine of these contractual workers and then wash its hands by pointing to absence of sanctioned post.

“The Court is of the view that once the State Government formulates and publishes a regularization policy, it is under an obligation to implement the same, particularly in a socialistic welfare State where hundreds of similarly situated employees have been considered. The State, being a model employer, is expected to act as a parent towards its employees, especially where the employees belong to an illiterate class and the lowest strata of society”, it also noted.

The Court remarked that the State is expected to act promptly and not allow its officials to remain in a state of inaction, thereby compelling employees to approach the Court for enforcement of their legal rights, which otherwise ought to have been considered in due course on the basis of the record available with the Respondents in a transparent and fair manner, thereby rendering the cause of action as a continuing one and therefore, the plea of delay and laches is wholly misconceived and cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive and accrued rights of the Petitioner, which ought to have been considered by the Respondents on the basis of the record available with them in a transparent, fair, and non-arbitrary manner.

“When the State engages people to serve the public often in the lowest rungs, with the least bargaining power it must remember that governance is not merely about outputs but it is also about how those outputs are produced”, it added.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court elucidated that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India do not merely regulate entry into public service but they govern the entire life cycle of public employment of State and the Constitutional promise is not exhausted once an employee crosses the threshold of appointment but it is a dynamic guarantee to safeguard against arbitrary action of the State including denial of legitimate consideration.

“In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has rendered continuous and uninterrupted service to the respondent department for nearly three decades. Notwithstanding the existence of multiple regularization policies under which the petitioner was prima facie eligible, the respondent-State failed to accord his case due consideration or extend the benefit of regularization. Having derived benefit from the services of the petitioner over such an extended period, the State cannot now evade its constitutional and administrative obligations by resorting to procedural objections of its own creation”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions, set aside the impugned Orders, and directed the Respondents to regularize the Petitioners in accordance with the law and under the relevant regularization policy in force.

Cause Title- Joginder v. State of Haryana and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:179510)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Ravinder Malik, Vikas Chatrath, Advocates Aman Nain, Rishab Arora, Shalender Mohan, K.S. Khehar, Arnirudh Malhar, Haridhi Aggarwal, Preet Agroa, Navdita Rathore, Tarurag Gaur, Harmanjeet Kaur, R.S. Mamli, Jawahar Lal Goyal, Parth Goyal, Nitin Katoria, Ajay Chaudhary, Raman B. Garg, Mayank Garg, Navdeep Singh, Jai Shree Kaushik, Shrey Goel, R.S. Nain, Sandeep Thakur, G.S. Dhaliwal, D.S. Nain, Satpal Nain, B.S. Beniwal, Deepak Sonak, Raman Sharma, Vinod Bhardwaj, Nipun Bhardwaj, Deepak Grover, Sandeep Sharma, Rohan Moudgil, Maninee, Sanjeev Sheoran, Suvir Sidher, Harlove Rajput, Manjot Bhullar, J.S. Maanipur, Harpreet Kaur, L.K. Gollen, Bharti Gollen, Himanshu Bansal, Jasleen Kaur, Mohit Garg, Ashok K. Sharma, Suman Sharma, Sandeep Sharma, Rohan Moudgil, and Maninee.

Respondents: Addl. AG Deepak Balyan, DAGs Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, R.D. Sharma, Advocates Jagdeep Singh, and Rajnikant Upadhyay.

Click here to read/download the Judgment