Two Retired Haryana Daily-Wage Workers Lose Bid To Backdate Regularisation From 2003 To 1996 After Years’ Delay: P&H HC

The petitioners, engaged as Mali-cum-Beldars in 1978 and 1982, sought regularization from 1 February 1996 under Haryana policies issued in 1996.

Their services were instead regularized from 1 October 2003 by orders dated 2 January 2015 and 21 January 2020.

Relying on information received under the RTI Act and a Division Bench judgment dated 27 April 2016 in State of Haryana v. Pawan Kumar, they sought the earlier effective date and consequential benefits.

The State opposed the petition on the grounds of delay and laches; both petitioners had retired by 2020.

The writ petition was filed on 27 October 2026.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require similarly situated employees ordinarily to be treated alike, but that principle is subject to the recognized exceptions of delay, laches, and acquiescence.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Supreme Court held that employees who allow an adverse action to stand and seek the benefit of relief later granted to others may be treated as “fence-sitters”; delay or acquiescence may defeat their claim.

An exception may apply where the earlier judgment is in rem and intended to benefit all similarly situated persons, rather than being confined to the parties before the court.

The Court also relied on Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab for the proposition that inordinate and unexplained delay in invoking Article 226 may disentitle a petitioner to relief.

The Court found that neither petitioner objected when regularized from 1 October 2003, and the petitioners had not shown that they raised the issue in their earlier litigation.

Their conduct amounted to acquiescence.

The Court further held that the claim, based on RTI information from 2011 and a 2016 judgment, was brought only in 2026 without any cogent explanation for the delay.

Applying Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Court treated the petitioners as fence-sitters and found the claim barred by delay and laches.

It found no basis to extend the cited judgment’s benefit to them despite their parity argument.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.