Listen To This Post

The ruling came on a batch of petitions against the State of Haryana and other respondents. In one such petition, the employee—engaged as a daily-wage labourer in 1995—had sought quashing of an order dated August 16, 2024, by which his claim for ante-dated regularisation was rejected, even though similarly placed employees had already been granted the benefit pursuant to court directions.

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a firm message to the State, ruling that government delay or subsequent policy changes cannot be used to deny regularisation that has already accrued to an employee. The court underlined that the decisive factor is the date on which an employee becomes eligible, not the date on which the government eventually chooses to act.

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that once an employee completes the requisite length of service while a regularisation policy is in force, the entitlement stands settled on that date. Such a right, the court said, does not vanish merely because the State delays its decision for years or later withdraws the policy. Government inaction, the Bench made clear, cannot erase a past legal entitlement.

State’s Duty, Not Employee’s Burden

Rejecting the State’s defence, the court clarified that the case was not about a specific post or designation, but about a fundamental principle of governance: the State cannot defeat accrued rights through its own inaction. It was the government’s responsibility to identify eligible employees and regularise them promptly.
“The responsibility to identify, consider, and regularise eligible employees rested squarely upon the State,” the court observed, adding that administrative delay cannot be converted into a tool to deprive a workman of legitimate rights.

Eligibility Date Is Final

Explaining the issue in simple chronological terms, the Bench noted that the employee in the case had completed the required service before September 30, 2003, when the regularisation policy was operative. On that date, his right crystallised.
“Once the petitioner stood eligible under the 2003 policy, the right to be considered for and granted regularisation crystallised then,” Justice Moudgil ruled.

Policy Withdrawal Cannot Work Retrospectively.

The ruling came on a batch of petitions against the State of Haryana and other respondents. In one such petition, the employee—engaged as a daily-wage labourer in 1995—had sought quashing of an order dated August 16, 2024, by which his claim for ante-dated regularisation was rejected, even though similarly placed employees had already been granted the benefit pursuant to court directions.

The State’s argument that the regularisation policy was later withdrawn was rejected outright. “The withdrawal of a policy cannot operate retrospectively to extinguish rights that had already accrued,” the court said, terming the denial “shocking to the conscience of the Court” when the delay was entirely attributable to the government.

No Advantage From One’s Own Wrong

The Bench emphasised that courts cannot permit the government to profit from its own lapse.
“To permit such a course would be to allow the State to take advantage of its own wrong, an outcome wholly impermissible in constitutional jurisprudence,” Justice Moudgil observed.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the High Court clarified that ante-dated regularisation does not create a new right retrospectively. Instead, it merely gives effect to a right that had already matured under an existing policy.

Discrimination Among Equals

The court also flagged discrimination, noting that similarly placed employees had been granted ante-dated regularisation. Denying the same benefit to one employee, it held, violated the principle of equality in public employment.
“Where a policy has been applied in favour of certain members of a class, its denial to another member of the same class… renders the action discriminatory,” the judgment said.

Relief Granted

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the August 16, 2024 order and directed the department to grant regularisation from the date the employee became eligible under the October 1, 2003 policy. All consequential benefits and arrears were ordered to be released with 6 per cent interest within three months.

Summing up the ruling in unequivocal terms, Justice Moudgil concluded: “Ante-dated regularisation is not a favour by the State. It is a constitutional requirement. The denial thereof undermines judicial finality, rewards administrative delay, and fractures the principle of equality in public employment.”