Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Ante-Dated Regularisation to Daily-Wage Beldar; Holds State Cannot Defeat Vested Rights by Delay
Case Name: Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026
Citation: CWP-24947-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition and held that ante-dated regularisation is not a discretionary concession but a constitutional consequence once eligibility under a prevailing policy is fulfilled. The Court held that the State cannot deny regularisation from the due date by relying upon its own administrative delay, subsequent withdrawal of policy, or selective application of benefits. Where similarly situated employees have been granted regularisation from an earlier date, denial of parity amounts to hostile discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage/muster roll basis on 01.05.1993 and continuously worked without break. The State of Haryana issued a regularisation policy dated 07.03.1996, later modified on 18.03.1996, under which employees who had completed three years of service as on 31.01.1996 were eligible for regularisation. Despite fulfilling the eligibility conditions, the petitioner’s services were regularised only with effect from 01.10.2003.
Similarly situated employees approached the High Court in CWP No. 1998 of 2003, which was allowed on 19.08.2004, directing regularisation from 01.02.1996 with all consequential benefits. The State’s challenge up to the Supreme Court failed, and the benefit of ante-dated regularisation was extended to those employees. The petitioner thereafter sought parity, but his claim was rejected on the ground that regularisation under the policy had been stayed and later withdrawn.
The High Court examined the scope of judicial review in service matters and emphasised that once eligibility under a policy crystallises, a vested right accrues which cannot be retrospectively defeated. The Court observed that the petitioner had completed more than three years of service by 1996 and had worked for over 240 days in each year, thereby satisfying all conditions under the 1996 policy. The State’s failure to identify and regularise eligible employees in time could not be used to the detriment of a Class-IV worker who had rendered decades of service.
The Court further held that ante-dated regularisation merely gives effect to an existing right and does not create a new right retrospectively. Relying upon Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, and Hari Nandan Prasad v. FCI, the Court held that selective denial of benefits extended to similarly situated employees is arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible. Withdrawal of the policy at a later stage was held to be irrelevant insofar as accrued rights under the 1996 policy were concerned.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order denying ante-dated regularisation was quashed. The respondent-department was directed to regularise the petitioner’s services with effect from 01.02.1996 under the 1996 policy and to release all consequential benefits along with interest at 6% per annum, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.