Punjab and Haryana High Court Slams NHM Staff Exploitation, Orders Regularisation of Contract Workers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the State cannot keep taking work of a permanent nature from employees while denying them the security and benefits of regular service, calling such arrangements “exploitation camouflaged as contractual engagement.”

Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that the government, which is expected to act as a model employer, cannot continue a system that keeps workers in insecure contractual roles while using them for ongoing and essential duties. The court said it could not ignore the reality that employees were being made to perform regular work without being granted the protections that normally come with permanent employment.

The judgment highlights the difference between temporary or genuinely project-based appointments and situations where the work is continuous, necessary, and of a lasting nature. In such cases, the court indicated, the State cannot justify keeping workers on contract indefinitely merely to avoid granting regular service status. The ruling reflects the principle that labor arrangements must be fair, transparent, and consistent with constitutional values of equality and dignity.

The court’s remarks are significant because they address a long-standing issue in public employment, where contractual hiring has often been used for positions that are not temporary in substance. According to the court, when the nature of the work itself is permanent, the employer cannot benefit from the services of employees while denying them the stability, security, and lawful service conditions associated with regular posts.

Justice Moudgil’s observation that the arrangement amounts to exploitation underscores the court’s concern that contractual labels should not be used to mask a system of ongoing dependence on low-security labor. The judgment sends a clear message that the State must not take advantage of workers’ vulnerable position by keeping them in a state of uncertainty for work that is essential and continuing.

The court’s stance also strengthens the broader legal principle that government authorities must act fairly in employment matters. Public employment, the judgment suggests, cannot be structured in a way that perpetuates inequality between the work performed and the status granted to the worker. If the work is regular and enduring, the court indicated, the treatment of the employee should reflect that reality.

The ruling may have implications for other contractual and daily-wage employees working in public institutions across the region, especially those performing duties similar to regular staff. It reinforces the view that the State cannot rely on contractual terms alone to justify long-term denial of regular service where the actual nature of the job is permanent.

By describing such practice as exploitation camouflaged as contractual engagement, the High Court has firmly placed the focus on substance over form. The decision emphasizes that the real nature of the employment, not merely the label attached to it, will matter in assessing whether the State has acted lawfully and fairly.