Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Retrospective Regularisation of Strike-Period Conductor; Holds Withdrawal Without Hearing Arbitrary

Case Name: Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026

Citation: CWP-7548-2018

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the writ petition and restored the order granting retrospective regularisation to the petitioner with effect from 01.03.1997. The Court held that once the State has extended retrospective regularisation to similarly situated employees, selective withdrawal of the same benefit amounts to hostile discrimination. It further held that an administrative order conferring a substantive right cannot be withdrawn without notice or opportunity of hearing, particularly where no fraud or misrepresentation is alleged.

Summary: The petitioner was engaged as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways during the December 1993 strike period and worked from 07.12.1993 to 20.12.1993. Upon conclusion of the strike, his services were terminated. Several similarly situated employees engaged during the same strike period later made representations and approached the High Court, pursuant to which they were re-appointed. The petitioner was also re-appointed on 01.06.2004 and continued in service thereafter.

While the petitioner’s services were initially regularised from 01.07.2008, many similarly placed conductors were granted retrospective regularisation from earlier dates, including 01.01.1996 and 01.03.1997. On the petitioner’s representation seeking parity, the competent authority passed an order dated 17.05.2016 regularising his services retrospectively from 01.03.1997.

However, within ten days, the same authority withdrew the benefit vide order dated 27.05.2016 without issuing any notice or granting an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the withdrawal order as arbitrary and discriminatory.

The State contended that the petitioner was not in service on 01.03.1997 and that the retrospective regularisation order was erroneous and liable to be recalled. The Court rejected this submission, observing that retrospective regularisation had already been granted to other employees who were similarly terminated and later re-appointed, and such orders continued to remain undisturbed.

Relying on settled principles under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and precedents including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that negative equality cannot be invoked to justify discriminatory State action when benefits granted to others have not been shown to be illegal. The Court also emphasised that the State, as a model employer, must act fairly and cannot selectively withdraw benefits already conferred after due consideration.

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 27.05.2016 withdrawing retrospective regularisation was quashed. The order dated 17.05.2016 regularising the petitioner’s services with effect from 01.03.1997 was restored. The respondents were directed to revise pay, release all consequential benefits and arrears with interest at 6% per annum from the date the amounts fell due.