HC orders Haryana to regularise long-serving temporary staff; read why it says the State can't run on ‘permanent temporariness’
Beyond the relief granted, the judgment is a sweeping constitutional explainer on why a welfare State cannot extract perennial work for decades while denying stability by changing labels
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside orders rejecting the regularisation of daily-wage, contractual and ad hoc employees and directed the Haryana Government to regularise them under applicable state policies, including those of 1993, 1996, 2003 and 2011, with all consequential benefits and interest. The ruling, delivered on December 31, 2025, was ordered to govern all connected matters with similar facts.
But beyond the relief granted, the judgment is a sweeping constitutional explainer on why a welfare State cannot extract perennial work for decades while denying stability by changing labels.
Judicial restraint is not judicial surrender
At the threshold, Justice Sandeep Moudgil framed the issue not as a routine service dispute, but as a constitutional examination of state conduct. It rejected the argument that courts must remain hands-off merely because service matters involve administrative discretion.
“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.”
Relying on Maneka Gandhi, the court reiterated that arbitrariness was antithetical to the rule of law, and selective application of regularisation policies “squarely invites interference”.
Labels don’t decide rights, substance does
A central theme of the ruling is the court’s rejection of “contractual”, “daily wage” or “project staff” as escape routes for the State.
“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.”
The court held that the State was not a private employer free to hire and discard, but a trustee of public power. When employees keep essential services running year after year, the law will not permit the State to “consume their labour as if it were an endlessly renewable commodity”.
Reconciling Uma Devi, not weaponising it
The judgment devotes substantial reasoning to dismantling the routine misuse of “State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi”. Justice Moudgil clarified that while Uma Devi bars courts from regularising illegal appointments, it also recognised a humane and constitutionally mandated one-time regularisation exercise.
“Uma Devi also made a critical, humane and legally precise distinction between illegal appointments and irregular appointments.”
Citing ML Kesari, the court stressed that this one-time exercise is not a bureaucratic ritual to be performed once and forgotten. “Until all such eligible employees are considered, the one-time exercise is not truly complete.”
The court flagged a familiar administrative tactic: repeatedly changing the description of engagement while the work remains perennial, thereby denying even consideration for regularisation.
Long service creates a right to consideration
The High Court carefully drew the line between no automatic right to regularisation and a constitutional right to fair consideration. “No employee can be kept temporary for an indefinite period. An employee has right to be considered for regularization considering the length of service rendered.”
Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, including “Jaggo v. Union of India (2024)”, the court underlined that prolonged, uninterrupted and blemish-free service performing essential functions cannot be brushed aside by technical objections.
The State cannot profit from its own inaction
One of the sharpest portions of the judgment deals with the oft-cited defence that no sanctioned posts exist. “When an institution extracts work for decades and then pleads, ‘there are no sanctioned posts’, it is not stating an inevitability of nature; it is confessing an administrative choice.”
Quoting Nihal Singh, the court reminded the State that “sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven”. If the State continues to take work, it must either create posts or stop extracting labour. The failure to do either is itself arbitrary State action.
Delay and laches: not a shield against constitutional duty
Rejecting the State’s plea of delay, the court held that once a regularisation policy exists, the obligation to consider eligible employees is continuous, particularly when the affected class belongs to the lowest strata of society.
“The cause of action is a continuing one… the plea of delay and laches is wholly misconceived and cannot be permitted to defeat substantive and accrued rights.”
Welfare State, not gig economy governance
In an unusually candid comparison, the court warned against the State mirroring exploitative private-sector practices.
“When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust.”
The judgment catalogued systemic harms: misclassification, arbitrary termination, denial of social security, stagnation, and outsourcing as a shield against accountability.
A moral vocabulary of constitutional governance
Striking a rare philosophical note, the court invoked ‘rajdharma’, ‘nyaya’, ‘anrishamsya’ and ‘lokasangraha’, reminding the State that governance is judged not only by outputs but by how those outputs are produced.
“A welfare State cannot, in good conscience or good law, keep citizens in endless precarity while taking uninterrupted benefit of their service.”
The bottom line
Summing up the constitutional position, the High Court held: “Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution do not merely regulate entry into public service but govern the entire life cycle of public employment.”
Accordingly, the court allowed all petitions, set aside rejection orders, directed regularisation under applicable policies, extended the benefit even to those with over 10 years’ service as on December 31, 2025, and ordered the release of arrears with 6 per cent interest within eight weeks.
The judgment stands as a clear message: the Constitution does not permit the State to build governance on the backs of workers kept temporary for life.
