A Resounding Call to Duty: High Court Mandates Regularisation of Long-Serving Daily Wagers

In a truly remarkable judgment that blends ancient wisdom with modern constitutional principles, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a decisive stand for the dignity of labor. It’s not every day you hear a court invoking "Rajdharma" – the sacred duty of a ruler – or drawing profound lessons from the Bhagavad Gita to resolve an employment dispute, is it?

Yet, that's precisely what Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj did. He didn't just look at the dry legalities; he delved into the moral fabric of governance. The court essentially reminded the state that its role isn't merely administrative, but also paternal, almost akin to a protector of its citizens, especially those most vulnerable. This wasn't just about jobs; it was about justice, about humanity.

The case itself brought to light the long-standing plight of countless daily wage workers, some of whom had toiled for the state for a staggering ten, twenty, or even more years. Imagine dedicating the prime of your life, decades even, to public service – whether it's driving buses for Haryana Roadways, working in various government departments – only to remain in a precarious, daily-wage existence. These individuals, petitioners in this case, had often performed duties identical to regular employees, yet their remuneration was meager, their benefits non-existent, their future uncertain. It's almost a textbook definition of exploitation, isn't it?

Justice Bhardwaj’s judgment articulated, quite powerfully, that the state bears a constitutional and moral obligation to protect its people. He pointed directly to Articles 14, 16, and 21 of our Constitution – those foundational pillars guaranteeing equality, equal opportunity, and the very right to life and personal liberty. You see, the court interpreted these rights not just as abstract legal concepts, but as a mandate for the state to ensure a life of dignity for its workers. To deny someone regularisation after such long service, the court seemed to imply, was to deny them that very dignity.

The court didn't shy away from critiquing the state's rather consistent pattern of engaging daily wagers for prolonged periods without any intention of regularising them. This practice, the judgment highlighted, creates a sort of 'backdoor entry' system that bypasses due process and leaves workers in limbo. It’s a systemic issue, one might say, that needed a firm hand. The ruling even referenced pivotal Supreme Court decisions, like the 2006 case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Others, which, while cautious about mass regularisation, certainly allowed for a one-time process for those who had genuinely served for over a decade. This wasn’t about creating new policies; it was about adhering to existing principles and judgments.

Ultimately, the High Court directed the state to regularise the services of these long-serving daily wagers. And it wasn't a suggestion; it was an order, to be complied with within three months, granting them all consequential benefits – yes, all of them – though, perhaps understandably, without arrears of salary. This is a significant step, indeed. It’s a testament to the idea that law isn’t just about rules; it's about fairness, about empathy, and ultimately, about ensuring that those who contribute to the state's functioning are treated with the respect and security they deserve.

This judgment, truly, is more than just a legal victory; it’s a powerful affirmation of human dignity and the state's inherent duty towards its citizens. It reminds us that governance, at its heart, must always be guided by principles of justice and compassion, just as ancient texts and our modern constitution eloquently preach.