Panchayat Samiti Is ‘State’ Under Article 12: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes De-Regularisation After 3 Years of Confirmed Service
Case Name: Shri Pal Singh v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 13 February 2026
Citation: CWP-11105-2000
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Panchayat Samiti is an “instrumentality of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that once services of an employee are regularised under a valid Government policy and consequential benefits are extended for years, subsequent de-regularisation on technical grounds is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioner was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar on 12.03.1991 through Employment Exchange in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sadhaura. His appointment was approved by the Deputy Commissioner and he worked continuously without break.
The Government of Haryana issued a policy dated 18.03.1996 for regularisation of daily-wage employees who had completed three years of continuous service with 240 days in each year and were in service as on 31.01.1996. The petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
Accordingly, his services were regularised w.e.f. 01.02.1996 vide letter dated 08.04.1996 against a vacant sanctioned post. The regularisation was further confirmed by the Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana. He was granted revised pay scales, annual increments, and a GPF number was allotted with regular deductions.
After more than three years of confirmed regular service, the respondents passed an order dated 08.08.1999 de-regularising the petitioner on the ground that his initial appointment was by Panchayat Samiti and not as a Government employee.
The Court framed two primary issues:
- Whether Panchayat Samiti falls within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Whether de-regularisation after valid regularisation was legally sustainable.
On the first issue, the Court applied the tests laid down in Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, and Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology. It held that Panchayat Samiti:
- Is a statutory body created under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
- Performs core governmental and developmental functions.
- Functions under deep and pervasive State control.
- Is substantially funded by the State Government.
On cumulative consideration of these factors, the Court held that Panchayat Samiti is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12.
On the second issue, the Court observed that:
- The petitioner’s regularisation was a conscious administrative act.
- No fraud or misrepresentation was alleged.
- The State allowed him to serve as a regular employee for over three years.
- Other similarly situated employees were either protected by interim orders or continued in service.
The Court held that withdrawing regularisation after prolonged acquiescence was arbitrary and created hostile discrimination. The State could not undo a settled position based on a technical objection regarding initial appointment.
The de-regularisation order was found violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.1999 was quashed. The petitioner was deemed to have continued in regular service w.e.f. 01.02.1996 with full continuity. He was held entitled to all consequential benefits including pay fixation, increments and retiral benefits. Arrears were directed to be paid along with interest at 6% per annum from the date due till actual payment.