Shabo Devi vs Bhakra Beas Management Board And Others

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


LPA-968-2024 (O&M)
Shabo Devi
…..Appellant
Versus
Bhakhra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector-19-B, Chandigarh
and others
..... Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars Details
1. The date when the judgment is reserved 28.10.2026
2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 11.11.2026
3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 11.11.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or full judgment is pronounced
5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent-BBMB.
*
MINDERJEET YADAV , J .
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred
challenging the judgment dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWP No. 9983 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the
appellant seeking regularisation of her services as a Group-D Sweeper,
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 2
along with consequential benefits, has been dismissed.
2. The grievance raised in the present appeal is that despite having
rendered more than three decades of continuous service with the
respondent-Bhakra Beas Management Board, the appellant has been denied
consideration for regularisation on the ground that her initial engagement
was on a part-time basis. The question which arises for consideration is
whether such prolonged service can be disregarded merely on account of the
nature of the initial engagement, without examining the actual duties
performed and the continued requirement for such work.
3. The brief facts necessary for the correct appreciation of the
controversy are that the appellant was engaged as a part-time Sweeper with
the respondent-Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter referred to as
'the Board') on 01.09.1991. It is the pleaded case of the appellant that she
has continued to discharge her duties without interruption and that her work
and conduct have remained satisfactory. The Board framed various policies
for regularisation of employees, including those dated 21.03.2001,
17.09.2004 and 11.05.2012. However, the appellant was not extended the
benefit of regularisation as she was working on a part-time basis. Aggrieved
thereof, she approached this Court by filing the writ petition, which came to
be dismissed vide judgment dated 05.02.2024.
4. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition,
primarily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union
of India and others v. Ilmo Devi and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899 ,
to hold that an employee working on a part-time basis cannot claim
regularisation merely on account of prolonged service or seek the minimum
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 3
of the regular pay scale admissible to Group-D employees.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant has been continuously
discharging duties necessary for the day-to-day functioning of the
establishment for more than three decades. It is contended that the actual
nature of employment, rather than its initial description, ought to have been
considered, particularly in view of the subsequent pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning regularisation of long-serving temporary
and part-time employees.
6. Per contra, the stand of the respondent-Board is that the
appellant was engaged on a part-time basis and not against a sanctioned
regular post. It is further maintained that the regularisation policies framed
by the Board do not cover part-time employees.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. The controversy is not whether the completion of a particular
number of years automatically converts a part-time appointment into a
regular appointment. The issue is whether, on the facts of this case and in
the light of the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Board can rely on the initial description of the appellant's engagement and
the asserted absence of a sanctioned post in one division as sufficient
reasons to deny the benefit of regularisation, without accounting for the
continued performance of the same duties over several decades.
9. It is well settled that public employment must conform to
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that regularisation
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 4
cannot be adopted as an alternative mode of recruitment. At the same time,
there is a material distinction between an engagement made to meet a
temporary requirement and one which, though initially temporary, continues
for decades against duties of a recurring and essential nature. While length
of service does not automatically confer regular status, it remains a relevant
circumstance which the employer cannot disregard while considering an
employee's claim.
10. The question must first be considered in the constitutional
framework explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Regularisation cannot replace recruitment consistent with Articles 14 and
16. In the said judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court contemplated a one-
time measure for irregularly appointed, duly qualified persons who had
worked for ten years or more against duly sanctioned posts without the
protection of judicial orders. Thus, neither a long period of service nor the
continued necessity for a particular kind of work can be treated, in isolation,
as an automatic source of regular appointment. Equally, the Board's
objections have to be examined in the context of the subsequent judicial
decisions and the particular employment arrangement disclosed by the
record.
11. In the case of Ilmo Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the claims of part-time contingent-paid sweepers who were
working for approximately four to five hours daily and were seeking
regularisation as well as parity with regular Group-D employees. The relief
was declined having regard to their part-time engagement, the absence of
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 5
sanctioned posts and the applicable regularisation framework. However, the
applicability to an individual employee must be determined after examining
the actual nature of the engagement and the circumstances in which the
services have continued.
12. The true character of employment cannot always be determined
merely from the nomenclature assigned at its inception. Where an employee
continues to perform essential duties for several decades, the employer must
examine whether the requirement remains genuinely temporary or whether
the work has acquired a continuing character. This distinction was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of
India and others, 2024 INSC 1034 , wherein the claims of part-time
Safaiwalis and other support staff engaged by the Central Water
Commission were examined. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasised the
importance of the actual duties performed, prolonged service and the
continued requirement for such work while determining the employees'
entitlement.
13. The central difficulty is the reliance placed upon the non-
availability of sanctioned posts. The sanctioned establishment is a relevant
component of the law of public employment. Yet the factual proposition that
no post is sanctioned in the division where an employee works is distinct
from a determination of the available strength in the relevant cadre and the
legal effect of years of engagement against a continuing requirement. A
public authority which has continued to obtain such work cannot treat a
general plea concerning sanctioned strength as a substitute for responding to
the claim on its actual facts. We are not, in the present appeal, adjudicating
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 6
any prayer seeking the creation of posts or ordering the Board to sanction
additional posts.
14. In the case Dharam Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
another, 2025 INSC 998 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the refusal
to sanction posts notwithstanding the employer's repeated proposals and the
admitted perennial nature of duties performed by employees serving for
decades. On the material before it, including the establishment's requirement
for work and comparable regularisations, the Court granted substantive
relief by directing regularisation and creation of supernumerary posts. The
decision was rendered in the context of a direct challenge to refusals to
sanction posts, and cannot be read as laying down an unqualified right to
regularisation merely upon completion of ten years. Its particular relevance
here is the Court's rejection of a mechanical reliance on sanctioned strength
without judicial consideration of the employment realities and the material
placed on record.
15. The obligation of a public employer to examine the actual
nature of employment was also considered in the case of Shripal and
another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 , wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dealt with employees who had performed essential
horticultural and maintenance duties over a prolonged period. Though the
relief granted therein arose from violations of the applicable industrial-
disputes legislation, the judgment reinforces the importance of examining
the actual employment relationship, the nature of duties and the employer's
conduct.
16. Similarly, in the case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and others v.
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 7
State of Assam and others, 2026 INSC 523 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the claims of muster-roll and work-charged employees who were
denied regularisation despite prolonged service and an applicable
governmental decision. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasised the
requirement of fairness and consistency in the treatment of similarly situated
employees and reiterated the distinction between illegal and irregular
appointments. The principle relevant to the present controversy is that the
employer's regularisation policies must be applied reasonably and without
arbitrary exclusion of employees otherwise entitled to consideration.
17. The application of these principles requires attention to the
actual relationship between the appellant and the Board. The date of initial
engagement, 01.09.1991, is not in controversy. The appellant asserts that
she has continued to perform sweeping duties thereafter, and the Board has
resisted regularisation by pointing principally to her part-time status and the
absence of a sanctioned post in her division. It is against this background,
rather than an abstract claim based on the length of service, that the
authorities noticed above must be applied.
18. It would also be relevant to notice that the claim for
regularisation of employees working with the very same respondent-Board
came up for consideration before this Court in Bhakhra Beas Management
Board and others v. Gopal Singh and others, LPA No. 635 of 2024 and
connected appeals , decided on 20.07.2026. This Court, after considering
the judgments in Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh , declined to interfere
with the directions for regularisation of employees who had rendered
prolonged contractual service. It was held that the absence of a separate
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 8
regularisation policy or additional financial liability could not, by
themselves, defeat a claim otherwise sustainable in law.
19. Though the employees in Gopal Singh's case (supra) had been
selected through an advertised process, which distinguishes their initial
engagement from that of the present appellant, the judgment is relevant as it
concerns the same Board and recognises the requirement of considering the
claims of long-serving employees in accordance with the governing legal
principles. The legality of the appellant's initial appointment must
nevertheless be examined independently.
20. The question concerning prolonged engagement and the actual
character of employment was also considered by this Court in Harjeet
Singh and others v. Union of India and others , CWP No. 2494 of 2018,
decided on 29.04.2026. This Court examined the subsequent judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning regularisation and recognised the
relevance of long service, the nature of duties and the circumstances of
engagement while determining the claim of an employee continuing in
service.
21. Further, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in
J eewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 10238 of 2017 ,
decided on 10.05.2019, wherein the employee had initially been engaged as
a part-time Sweeper and continued in service for more than two decades
before regularisation. The controversy in that case concerned whether the
earlier service could be counted towards qualifying service for pension
following regularisation. While examining Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules, Volume II, this Court noticed the condition relating to
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 9
service paid from contingencies being rendered in a type of work or job for
which a regular post could have been sanctioned. The Court also considered
the Division Bench decision in State of Haryana v. Zile Singh, LPA No.
426 of 2016 , decided on 18.03.2016, which recognised, for purposes of
computing pensionary service, that engagement continuing for a
considerable period could not readily be disregarded merely on account of
an initial part-time description.
22. The significance of the reasoning in Jeewan Lata's case (supra)
is the distinction between the formal status of an employee and the actual
character and continued requirement of the duties performed. The
expression concerning work for which a regular post could have been
sanctioned forms part of a pension-rule provision, and Jeewan Lata did not
decide that an employee had a direct right to regularisation without a
sanctioned post. Nevertheless, the decision is relevant, by analogy, in
assessing whether a public employer has adequately considered the
perennial nature of work continuously taken from an employee. Its
applicability must remain confined to that proposition, particularly when the
entitlement presently claimed is regularisation rather than the calculation of
pension after regularisation.
23. The relevance of Jeewan Lata's case (supra) to the present
appeal must be carefully confined. It concerned the reckoning of qualifying
service for pension after the employee's regularisation; it did not hold that
service rendered for work for which a post could have been sanctioned
creates an independent right to regularisation. Nevertheless, the reasoning
illustrates why the actual continuity and character of duties may be more
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 10
informative than the original description of an engagement. In the present
appeal, those circumstances bear upon the assessment of the Board's
objections, while the legal requirements governing regularisation remain
those stated in the applicable binding authorities.
24. The question concerning prolonged engagement and the actual
character of employment was also considered by this Court in Chandigarh
Administration and others v. Nanu Ram and another, CWP No. 21922 of
2026 , decided on 24.08.2026. The employee therein had rendered
approximately 23 years of part-time Class-IV service and, on the facts found
in that case, worked for six hours a day against eight hours worked by
regular employees. The principal question was the grant of the minimum of
the regular Group-D pay scale. The Court examined the employer's reliance
on Ilmo Devi alongside the subsequent decisions in Jaggo, Shripal and
Dharam Singh , and considered the treatment accorded to comparable
employees. The employer's challenge to the grant of the minimum pay scale
was rejected. Although the discussion in Nanu Ram notices later decisions
concerning regularisation, the relief actually decided there was pay parity,
not an unconditional direction to regularise every part-time employee
irrespective of sanctioned posts.
25. The case of Nanu Ram (Supra) is therefore relevant to the
separate claim for the minimum of the corresponding regular pay scale,
while also underscoring the need to evaluate the actual terms and conditions
of work rather than solely its nomenclature. In the present matter, the record
must establish the appellant's working hours, nature and extent of duties, the
position of comparable employees, and the applicable rules before a
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 11
decision on pay parity can be made. Those facts cannot be presumed merely
from the duration of her engagement.
26. We now turn from the legal principles to the particular
objections raised by BBMB. The Board relies upon regularisation policies
dated 21.03.2001, 17.09.2004 and 11.05.2012 which, according to it, do not
extend to employees engaged on a part-time basis. The existence of different
categories in an employment policy is not, without more, unconstitutional.
Nor does an employee excluded from a policy acquire its benefit simply
because another class was included. But when the appellant pleads service
beginning in 1991 and continuing for more than three decades, the policy
exclusion must be considered together with the law concerning long-serving
part-time employees and the Board's actual use of her services. The policy
classification is not an answer to the constitutional question merely because
it is expressed in the policy.
27. Sweeping and cleaning are functions ordinarily required for the
day-to-day maintenance of an establishment. That observation does not
establish how many hours the appellant worked each day or whether the
particular assignment required a full-time incumbent. Those matters cannot
be assumed in her favour. At the same time, the fact that the Board has
continued to retain her for work of this description is relevant to determine
whether the arrangement was genuinely intermittent or had become a
continuing feature of its operations. The distinction between the duration of
daily attendance and the duration of the employment relationship is
material.
28. The sanctioned-post objection requires precision. In the legal
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 12
notice dated 03.12.2012 (Annexure P-2), the appellant asserted that
information obtained under the Right to Information Act disclosed 13
sanctioned vacant Safai Sewak posts in different divisions, including four in
O&M Division, Panipat. That is an assertion in a legal notice, not an
independently proved vacancy statement. Conversely, the Board's additional
affidavit asserts that no sanctioned Safai Sewak post existed in C.C.
Division, Panipat, where the appellant was deployed. This is a statement
concerning one division and cannot, without reference to cadre and
establishment records, be equated with a finding that no relevant posts
existed in the Board. Neither party's assertion may be enlarged beyond its
proper evidentiary scope. We do not found the appellant's entitlement upon
a presumption that 13 vacancies were available to her.
29. The issue of the Board's actual recruitment practices was
expressly noticed during the writ proceedings. By order dated 21.09.2016,
this Court called upon the Board to place the recruitment rules governing
Sweeper/Class-IV posts on record, to explain the engagement of a Sweeper
on a part-time basis where permanent recruitment was provided for, and to
disclose recruitment to Sweeper posts between 1991 and 2016. The
presence of this order is material. It shows that the controversy was not
confined to the description in the appellant's initial engagement: it
encompassed the consistency of the Board's practice with its recruitment
framework. The impugned judgment does not resolve that factual and legal
tension.
30. There is another circumstance pleaded in the original writ
petition which deserves express notice. The appellant has asserted that a
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 13
Contributory Provident Fund account was allotted to her and that
contributions were deducted monthly and continuously. The allotment of a
CPF account or deduction of contributions may, however, corroborate an
enduring employer–employee relationship, if the account and deduction
history are borne out by the Board's official records.
31. The material point arising from the CPF plea is not that an
employee participating in a provident-fund arrangement automatically
acquires regular status. It is that the Board cannot simultaneously rely on
her supposedly temporary or casual status while overlooking evidence, if
available, of its own systematic recognition of the continuing employment
relationship. The existence and extent of CPF deductions, when read with
the service records and the duration of engagement, bear directly upon the
factual foundation for a claim of prolonged continuous service.
32. The learned Single Judge primarily relied upon Ilmo Devi
(supra). That decision remains binding and cannot be displaced merely by
describing the appellant's employment as long-standing. Nevertheless, Ilmo
Devi (supra) was decided on its own factual record and regularisation
framework. The subsequent decisions in Jaggo, Shripal (supra) and
Dharam Singh (supra), and the application of those decisions by this Court
in cases involving prolonged engagement, require the objections in the
present case to be considered with specificity. The impugned judgment does
not examine the material concerning the Board's recruitment practices, the
pleaded CPF deductions, the limited nature of the Board's assertion about
sanctioned posts, or the distinction between the duration of employment and
hours worked daily. We find that a rejection resting principally on the
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 14
nomenclature of part-time engagement is not a satisfactory resolution of this
record.
33. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, we find that the appellant's claim cannot be defeated merely on the
ground that her initial engagement was on a part-time basis. The appellant
was engaged as a Sweeper on 01.09.1991 and has continued to assert an
uninterrupted association with the respondent-Board extending over three
decades. The nature of the duties performed by her, namely sweeping and
cleaning, is not ordinarily confined to any temporary or short-term
requirement of the establishment. The appellant has also specifically
pleaded that she was allotted a Contributory Provident Fund account and
that monthly deductions were regularly made towards the same. Though the
said circumstance does not, by itself, confer the status of a regular
employee, it assumes significance while examining the nature and
continuity of the employment relationship. These circumstances, considered
cumulatively, provide a substantial foundation for examining the appellant's
claim beyond the mere nomenclature of her initial appointment.
34. The respondent-Board has sought to resist the claim principally
on the grounds that the appellant was engaged on a part-time basis, that the
regularisation policies framed by it did not extend to such employees and
that no sanctioned post of Safai Sewak existed in the C.C. Division, Panipat.
The question, however, is whether these objections, in the circumstances of
the present case, furnish sufficient justification for denying the appellant the
benefit of regularisation. The principles laid down in Umadevi (supra) and
Ilmo Devi (supra) undoubtedly require adherence to the constitutional
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 15
framework governing public employment. Nevertheless, the subsequent
pronouncements in Jaggo (supra) , Shripal (supra) and Dharam Singh
(supra) demonstrate that the actual nature of the duties performed, the
duration and continuity of service and the circumstances in which the public
employer has continued to avail itself of such services are material
considerations which cannot be disregarded. The absence of a sanctioned
post, therefore, cannot be invoked as a mechanical answer to every claim
arising out of prolonged employment, although the legal requirements
governing regular appointments cannot be dispensed with merely on
account of length of service. In the present case, the Board's assertion
regarding the absence of a sanctioned post in one particular division does
not, by itself, conclusively establish that the appellant's claim is legally
untenable.
35. What emerges from the record is that the respondent-Board has
continued to avail itself of the services of the appellant for a substantially
prolonged period while maintaining that her initial part-time engagement
disentitles her to regularisation. A public employer cannot seek to derive the
benefit of services rendered over several decades and, at the same time, treat
the initial description of such employment as the sole determining
consideration, without accounting for the actual nature and continuity of the
engagement and the applicable legal principles. The issue is not whether
prolonged service, by itself, creates an automatic right to regularisation, but
whether the objections relied upon by the Board constitute a legally
sustainable basis for denying the claim when tested against the
circumstances of the employment and the law discussed hereinabove. We
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 16
are of the considered view that the appellant's claim is entitled to
substantive consideration on this basis, and that neither her initial part-time
status nor the Board's assertion concerning the absence of a sanctioned post
in the particular division can, in isolation, furnish a sufficient ground for its
rejection.
36. It is also significant that the appellant's claim is not founded
merely upon the completion of a particular number of years in service. Her
grievance arises from the continued engagement by the respondent-Board
for duties which, by their very nature, form part of the recurring
requirements of the establishment. The length of such engagement, coupled
with the specific plea regarding regular deductions towards the Contributory
Provident Fund, raises a substantial question concerning the actual character
of the employment relationship. The appellant cannot be deprived of a
meaningful examination of her entitlement merely because the arrangement
under which she was initially engaged has continued to be described as part-
time. The respondent-Board, being a public authority, is expected to act in a
manner consistent with fairness and non-arbitrariness while dealing with
employees whose services it has continued to utilise over a considerably
prolonged period.
37. The distinction between prolonged employment and an
enforceable right to regularisation must nevertheless be maintained. The
constitutional scheme does not contemplate regularisation merely upon the
passage of time, nor can the requirement of lawful public recruitment be
rendered redundant. At the same time, the principles governing public
employment cannot be applied in a manner which forecloses an examination
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 17
of the actual circumstances of an employee's engagement. In the present
case, the respondent-Board's reliance upon the initial part-time character of
the appellant's appointment, the exclusion contained in its regularisation
policies and the asserted absence of a sanctioned post must be considered in
the context of her prolonged service, the nature of the duties performed and
the subsequent developments in law. These considerations are not
independent or isolated factors; their cumulative effect is material to the
determination of her claim.
38. We find that the learned Single Judge, while placing reliance
upon Ilmo Devi (supra), did not sufficiently examine the distinguishing
circumstances arising from the record, including the appellant's prolonged
engagement, her plea concerning regular provident fund deductions, the
question regarding sanctioned posts and the explanation required from the
respondent-Board concerning its recruitment practices. The subsequent
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly in Jaggo
(supra) and Dharam Singh (supra), also warrant consideration insofar as
they address the implications of continued engagement for duties of a
recurring nature. The impugned judgment, having proceeded substantially
on the initial part-time status of the appellant without a complete
examination of these circumstances, cannot be sustained.
39. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered view that the appellant's claim for regularisation merits
substantive determination in accordance with the principles discussed
hereinabove. The respondent-Board cannot decline such a claim merely by
reiterating that the appellant was initially engaged on a part-time basis or
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 18
that no sanctioned post existed in the particular division where she was
working. Any objection founded upon the applicable recruitment rules,
regularisation policies or sanctioned establishment must be supported by the
relevant record and must be legally sustainable in the light of the
circumstances noticed hereinabove. The prolonged and continuous nature of
the engagement and the recurring requirement for the duties performed by
the appellant are material considerations which must receive due weight.
40. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the Impugned
judgment dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.
9983 of 2013 is set aside. The respondent-Board is directed to determine the
appellant's entitlement to regularisation in the light of the findings recorded
hereinabove. The said exercise shall not be treated as a fresh or unrestricted
reconsideration of the claim. The Board shall remain bound by the
conclusions recorded in this judgment and shall not reject the appellant's
claim merely by referring to the part-time nature of her initial engagement
or by repeating the assertion concerning the non-availability of a sanctioned
post in the C.C. Division, Panipat, without addressing the legal and factual
considerations discussed hereinabove.
41. The competent authority shall verify the continuity of the
appellant's engagement, including the relevant service and Contributory
Provident Fund records, her eligibility under the applicable legal framework
and her work and conduct. If the appellant is found to satisfy the
requirements for regularisation in the light of the findings recorded
hereinabove, the respondent-Board shall issue the consequential order of
regularisation, rather than requiring her to institute fresh proceedings for
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

LPA-968-2024 (O&M) 19
obtaining the said relief. The entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment, by passing an appropriate reasoned order.
42. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
(MINDERJEET YADAV)
JUDGE

11.11.2026
Satyawan
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes

Whether Reportabl : Yes
SATYAWAN
2026.11.11 18:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document