Decades of service cannot be called ‘casual’: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that calling decades of dedicated work “casual” is both factually wrong and morally unjust. The court said the law must look beyond labels and recognise the real nature of employment, especially for those who have given a lifetime to public service.

The court emphatically ruled that the law must pierce the veil of nomenclature and recognise the true substance of employment relationships. Taking up a petition filed by Harbhajan Singh and other petitioners against Bhakra Beas Management Board and other respondents, Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, “Equity must not be a casualty in the hands of executive convenience and Article 14 of the Constitution not only demands equality before law but also fairness in state action… those who have given a lifetime to public service must not be left stranded in their twilight years with nothing but hope.”

The court observed that the petitioners, who have been continuously engaged as daily wage workers with BBMB since 1989, performed duties akin to permanent employees. “Through sun and storm, they have discharged duties… these duties being regular in nature, continuous in execution, and essential to the functioning of the institution. To call such service ‘casual’ is not only factually untenable but morally unjust,” the bench asserted.

Referring to the human aspect of law, Justice Moudgil added, “The petitioners before this court are not faceless names in a file but human beings who have served a public institution with diligence and dignity for over three decades. To ignore this fact is to make justice blind to lived realities.”

The bench added that prolonged public employment demanded recognition and fairness. “Public employment, when prolonged and uninterrupted, must be met with the fairness of due recognition. These petitioners have not merely worked but have endured and continue to receive meagre wages after decades of service. This is a stark reminder of the systemic inequity that daily wage workers suffer often under the garb of technicalities and institutional inaction,” the court observed.

On the respondents’ rejection of the petitioners’ claims through the impugned order of May 2, 2019, the court held that such denial ignored the “humane jurisprudence” established by the Supreme Court. Justice Moudgil observed that long-serving employees were entitled to protection from discrimination. The bench cited the principle that exceptions to rigid employment regularisation rules are designed “to preserve the conscience of law”.

Addressing procedural objections, the court clarified that BBMB, although under Centre’s control, was bound by state government instructions. “Rule 6 of the BBMB Rules, 1974, clearly envisages the application of state government instructions, thus creating a statutory bridge between the state’s welfare policies and the employees of the Board,” the judgment held.

The petitioners had sought regularisation citing continuous service for over three decades and eligibility under the Punjab Adhoc, Contractual, Daily Wage, Temporary, Work Charged and Outsourced Employees’ Welfare Act, 2016, as well as prior state government policy circulars.