Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Regularisation of Forest Department Daily Wagers With Judicially Granted Continuity of Service; Holds Uma Devi Inapplicable
Case Name: Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 23 December 2025
Citation: CWP-26643-2025 and connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by daily wage Group-D employees of the Forest Department and held that once termination has been set aside by the Labour Court with continuity of service and such continuity has attained finality, the State cannot deny regularisation under the Haryana Regularisation Policies of 2003 and 2004. The Court held that accrued rights under the regularisation policy cannot be defeated by subsequently invoking Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, nor can the State adopt inconsistent stands on service records to deny benefits extended to similarly situated employees.
Summary: The petitioners were engaged as daily wage workers in the Forest Department and had rendered long years of service before their services were terminated. The termination was set aside by the Labour Court with continuity of service, and the award was upheld by the High Court, thereby attaining finality. Despite this, the petitioners were denied regularisation under the State’s regularisation policies on the ground that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts and had not completed the requisite qualifying service.
The State further relied upon the judgment in Uma Devi to contend that regularisation could not be granted after withdrawal of the policy. The High Court rejected these submissions, holding that continuity of service granted by a judicial order restores service status for all consequential benefits and cannot be treated as notional or symbolic. The Court observed that rights accrued under the 2003–2004 regularisation policies stood crystallised and could not be taken away merely because the policy was later withdrawn.
The Court also took note of the fact that similarly situated employees had already been regularised by the Department, and denial of the same benefit to the petitioners amounted to hostile discrimination. The State’s inconsistent stand regarding availability of service records was deprecated, and the Court held that Uma Devi could not be mechanically applied to deny regularisation where long service had been rendered with the State’s knowledge and protection of judicial orders.
Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the petitioners’ claims for regularisation were set aside. The State of Haryana was directed to grant regularisation to the petitioners in accordance with the Regularisation Policies dated 01.10.2003 and 10.02.2004, along with all consequential benefits.