Contractual Employees Have No Right to Regularisation or Permanency; Absence of Sanctioned Post Defeats Claim Under Umadevi: Punjab & Haryana HC

Case Name: Devinder Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026

Citation: CWP-14424-2007

Bench: Justice Namit Kumar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a contractual employee has no vested or enforceable right to seek regularisation or permanent absorption merely because he has rendered long years of service. The one-time regularisation contemplated in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi does not extend to contractual appointees whose engagement was not made through a regular recruitment process or against sanctioned posts.

The Court further held that regularisation cannot be directed in the absence of sanctioned posts, as such a direction would be contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. A policy framed pursuant to Umadevi cannot be invoked by contractual employees who fall outside its scope, nor can courts issue a writ of mandamus compelling the State to regularise contractual appointments de hors the governing policy and constitutional scheme.

Summary: The petitioners were initially appointed as Chowkidars on a contractual basis by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board in 1991 and 1992 for operating and guarding tubewells. In 2000, when the tubewells were transferred to the Municipal Council, Garhshankar, the petitioners also continued working with the Municipal Council. They claimed that having continuously served for nearly fifteen years, they became entitled to regularisation under the Punjab Government’s policy dated 15 December 2006, which had been framed pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

The petitioners contended that the Municipal Council had already resolved to absorb them and that the State was under an obligation to consider their cases for regularisation. They further alleged that instead of considering their claim, the Municipal Council sought to relieve them and send them back to the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board.

The respondents opposed the writ petition by contending that the petitioners had throughout remained contractual employees and that the 2006 regularisation policy applied only to daily wagers, work-charged, ad hoc and temporary employees satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. It was also submitted that no sanctioned posts of Chowkidar existed in the Municipal Council and that the operation of tubewells had subsequently been outsourced, leaving no post against which the petitioners could be regularised.

The High Court accepted the respondents’ submissions. It observed that contractual employment, by its very nature, carries no promise of permanence and comes to an end according to the terms of engagement. Merely rendering long years of contractual service does not create a legal right to regularisation or continuation in service.

The Court relied extensively upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umadevi, Yogesh Mahajan v. Professor R.C. Deka, Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen and Dhananjay v. Chief Executive, Zila Parishad, Jalna to reiterate that courts cannot direct regularisation of contractual employees whose appointments were not made through a constitutionally compliant recruitment process or against sanctioned vacancies.

The Court further noted that the petitioners’ appointments by the Municipal Council were themselves contractual and not preceded by any recruitment process consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equally significant was the fact that no sanctioned posts of Chowkidar existed in the Municipal Council. Since regularisation necessarily presupposes the existence of a sanctioned vacant post, the absence of such posts was by itself fatal to the petitioners’ claim.

Rejecting the reliance placed on the Punjab Government’s regularisation policy dated 15 December 2006, the Court held that the policy could not enlarge the category of beneficiaries beyond its express terms. Contractual employees whose appointments did not satisfy the constitutional and statutory requirements could not claim regularisation as a matter of right merely because they had worked for several years.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioners, being contractual employees not appointed through a regular recruitment process and not working against sanctioned posts, had no enforceable right to regularisation under the Punjab Government’s policy or the principles laid down in Umadevi.