‘Inaction by authorities can’t deprive worker of accrued rights’: Court orders regularisation

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said the state, as a model employer, is bound to act fairly and with sensitivity toward its employees, and directed the Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board to regularise a man's services from 2003.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board to regularise a daily-wage employee’s services from October 1, 2003, holding that administrative inaction cannot be converted into a tool to deprive a workman of his accrued rights.

The court also granted related benefits and 12 per cent interest from the date of accrual. The employee was seeking regularisation of his services as a peon under the Haryana Government’s 2003 regularisation policy.

Dealing with the employee’s plea, Justice Harkesh Manuja said, “Administrative inaction of this kind cannot be converted into a tool to deprive a workman of his accrued rights, for that would allow the State to take advantage of its own wrong, an outcome wholly impermissible in constitutional jurisprudence.”

The high court emphasised that the state, as a model employer, is constitutionally bound to act fairly, reasonably, and with sensitivity toward its employees. “Denying the appellant regularisation w.e.f. October 2003, when the very same benefit was extended to his similarly situated juniors from that date, would render the promise of equality illusory and would legitimise a course of conduct that is arbitrary, discriminatory, and constitutionally impermissible,” it stated.

Baljit Singh joined the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhiwani, on January 1, 2000, as a road roller driver on a daily-wage basis against a vacant sanctioned post.

Justice Harkesh Manuja emphasised that equality before law requires that persons similarly situated must be treated alike.

After the road rollers became non-functional, he was retained as a peon on daily wages. He claimed that he had rendered satisfactory service and fulfilled the conditions for regularisation under the government’s policy dated October 1, 2003.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Ankur Dua claimed that 85 Class-IV posts had been created for regularising daily-wage employees and several posts remained vacant. According to him, some of his juniors were regularised under the 2003 policy, but his case was not considered.

Hence, he sought regularisation as a peon from October 1, 2003, along with arrears, related benefits and interest. In the alternative, he sought regularisation under the subsequent policy dated June 18, 2014.

Representing the board, advocate Subhash Chander Gupta argued that the petitioner had not been appointed against a regular post and had instead been engaged through a contractual agency, making him ineligible for regularisation.

The trial court, in its September 2017 judgment, held that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation from June 18, 2014, with consequential benefits, but rejected his claim for regularisation from October 1, 2003.

The first appellate court upheld this decision in 2025, holding, among other things, that the 2003 policy was no longer in existence when the petitioner filed his suit in 2015. The petitioner then approached the high court, challenging the denial of regularisation from October 1, 2003.

‘Selective application is hostile discrimination’

The high court held that the two reasons given for denying regularisation from October 1, 2003 were legally unsustainable. The mere reference to “administrative reasons”, without explaining what those reasons were, could not justify denying the employee a benefit for which he had fulfilled all the prescribed conditions.

It rejected the finding that the 2003 regularisation policy had become ineffective after the 2014 policy. Relying on earlier decisions, the court held that the 2003 policy was revived by the June 18, 2014 notification and could therefore not be treated as having ceased to have legal effect.

“A right that has already accrued cannot be extinguished merely because the department chose not to act upon it before a new policy came into force,” the order observed, adding that the responsibility to identify, consider, and regularise eligible employees rested upon the authorities, and “their failure to discharge it in time cannot now be turned to his detriment.”

It explained the principle of accrued rights, observing that once an employee meets all conditions of a policy while it is in force, the benefit becomes a vested right. A later withdrawal or replacement of the policy cannot retrospectively take away that right. “Such selective application of policy results in hostile discrimination and creates an unreasonable classification devoid of any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved,” it noted.

The court emphasised that equality before law requires that persons similarly situated must be treated alike, and any state action which suffers from such arbitrariness is violative of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution of India.