Punjab & Haryana HC: three decades of part-time service cannot be brushed aside in a regularisation claim

Allowing a Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Minderjeet Yadav) set aside a single judge's dismissal of a part-time sweeper's claim for regularisation against the Bhakra Beas Management Board, where she had worked continuously since 1991 but was denied regularisation under the Board's policies solely because her engagement was described as part-time. The single judge had relied on Union of India v. Ilmo Devi (2021) to hold that part-time employees cannot claim regularisation merely for long service. The Division Bench held that public employment must conform to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that regularisation cannot be an alternative mode of recruitment, per Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) — but that this does not let an employer rely only on the initial label of an engagement while ignoring decades of continuous, essential work.

It distinguished Ilmo Devi as concerning sweepers working four to five hours daily, and relied on Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) for the proposition that courts must examine the actual duties performed and the continuing nature of the requirement, rather than mechanically citing an absence of sanctioned posts. The Board was directed to redetermine the appellant's entitlement to regularisation within eight weeks, considering her service record and eligibility, bound by the Bench's findings and without treating the exercise as open for fresh rejection on the grounds already rejected.