The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed that if a public employee makes a representation for regularization of service, the competent authority must consider it in light of binding Supreme Court judgments and give reasoned orders. This upholds established precedent and provides binding procedural guidance within the court’s jurisdiction for handling such cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/25586/2025 of PREET KARAN SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011176092025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.; Vikas Suri, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana; establishes procedural guidelines for similar matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms recent Supreme Court judgments (Jaggo, Shripal) |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Regularization of Public Employees |
| Questions of Law | Whether authorities are bound to process representations for regularization in light of recent Supreme Court precedent |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The competent authority, upon receiving a representation for regularization supported by recent Supreme Court precedent, is bound to consider the same and pass a reasoned order within a specific timeframe. If the request is denied, reasons must be supplied to the petitioner. This procedural obligation flows from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Jaggo v. Union of India and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on a statement that the representation would be so considered. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Applied binding Supreme Court directions on the subject of regularization of services. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was denied regularization by Tribunal order dated 06.09.2017; has 17 years’ service; Supreme Court has ruled on similar claims. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Punjab & Haryana, regarding procedure for considering regularization claims |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar factual matrices and Supreme Court, as to procedural compliance |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the obligation of public authorities to process service regularization representations in light of Supreme Court precedent.
- Mandates a reasoned and time-bound order: authorities must decide within eight weeks and provide reasons if relief is denied.
- Lawyers can cite this as binding procedural authority to ensure that representations following Supreme Court judgments are not summarily dismissed.
- The court did not itself grant regularization but ensured the opportunity for considered adjudication at the administrative level, per apex court guidance.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the petitioner challenged denial of regularization and relied on recent Supreme Court decisions (Jaggo and Shripal) which clarified the law on regularization of service for similarly placed employees.
- The respondent authorities agreed that any representation by the petitioner would be considered on its merits as per directions in the cited Supreme Court judgments.
- The court accepted the statement of counsel for the respondents and disposed of the writ petition as not pressed, but with an assurance of adherence to the procedural obligations emerging from Supreme Court precedent.
- The outcome upholds the principle that subordinate authorities must comply with apex court law, provide timely decisions, and supply reasons where relief is denied.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has completed 17 years of service since 2008.
- Supreme Court in Jaggo’s and Shripal’s cases has settled the law in favour of regularization.
- Seeks consideration of his claim for regularization in view of these judgments.
Respondent
- If a detailed representation is submitted by the petitioner, it will be considered as per the law declared in Jaggo and Shripal.
- A reasoned order will be passed within eight weeks; if relief is denied, reasons will be given and communicated to the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner was denied the benefit of regularization by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, vide order dated 06.09.2017. He has been working since 2008 and has rendered 17 years of service. The petitioner relied on two recent Supreme Court decisions (Jaggo v. Union of India; Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad) which clarified entitlement to regularization in similar circumstances. As per respondent’s submission, the matter would be re-examined if the petitioner files a fresh representation, leading to withdrawal and disposal of the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment refers to the settled legal position on regularization in service law, relying expressly on Supreme Court decisions. It does not undertake independent statutory interpretation within this order but ensures that administrative authorities apply the latest binding precedent in service regularization claims.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded; both judges concurred in the order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court records an undertaking by the respondent authority to pass a reasoned order within a set timeframe (eight weeks) on receiving a representation, ensuring timely and transparent administrative decision-making.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The order affirms and mandates compliance with existing Supreme Court precedent (Jaggo, Shripal).
Citations
- Jaggo v. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 14831 of 2024 (Supreme Court, decided 20.12.2024)
- Shripal and another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Civil Appeal No. 8157 of 2024 (Supreme Court, decided 31.01.2025)