04/06/2026
*Punjab and Haryana High Court regularises contractual NHM employees after 10 years of service, here's why*
Haryana, Thu, 4 June 2026:-
Court says State cannot exploit workers engaged in perennial public health duties under the guise of contractual employment
*NHM employees regularisation*
Though appointed on contractual terms, most had continued in service uninterrupted for over a decade, with some completing between 11 and 20 years.
In a significant ruling impacting hundreds of contractual employees under the National Health Mission (NHM) in Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the regularisation of employees who have completed more than 10 years of continuous service.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed this order in a case filed by Neeraj Rani against State of Haryana and others, along with 103 connected petitions.
The court directed the State of Haryana and the Mission Director, NHM, to regularise the services of eligible petitioners from the date of their initial appointment along with consequential benefits within eight weeks.
The petitioners included Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs), staff nurses, lab technicians, sanitation workers, drivers and other healthcare staff appointed under the NHM after advertisements, merit-based selection and issuance of appointment letters by competent authorities.
Though appointed on contractual terms, most had continued in service uninterrupted for over a decade, with some completing between 11 and 20 years.
Why the HC ordered regularisation
👉*Continuous service beyond a decade*:
The court observed that the employees had worked uninterruptedly for more than 10 years and their services continued to be required by the State.
👉*Nature of work was permanent and essential*:
Justice Moudgil held that the duties discharged by the employees were “essential, recurring, and integral” to the State’s healthcare obligations and not temporary or seasonal in nature.
👉*NHM is an ongoing scheme*:
The court noted that the National Health Mission was a continuing programme with no indication of closure in the foreseeable future.
👉*Appointments were made through due process*:
The employees were not “back-door entrants”. Their appointments followed advertisements, scrutiny of qualifications, merit lists and selection committees.
👉*State functioning as employer*:
The judgment stressed that the employees worked under the direct control and supervision of the State Health machinery despite being labelled contractual staff.
👉*Contractual label cannot defeat constitutional rights*:
The court ruled that constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 could not be bypassed merely by describing employees as contractual workers.
👉*State cannot exploit employees*:
Justice Moudgil observed that the State was expected to act as a “model employer” and could not keep workers in prolonged uncertainty despite continuous need for their services.
👉*Financial constraints not a valid defence*:
The court rejected the State’s plea regarding lack of sanctioned posts and financial limitations, holding that administrative convenience could not override constitutional obligations.
👉*Uma Devi judgment distinguished*:
The court clarified that the Supreme Court ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi did not apply strictly in this case because the appointments were irregular, not illegal, and had followed due process.
👉*Reliance on recent Supreme Court rulings*:
The judgment cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh, to hold that prolonged contractual employment in perennial work amounted to exploitation.
In its observations, the court said, “The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or derive advantage from the vulnerability of those seeking employment.”
The court further remarked that “administrative convenience cannot displace constitutional obligation” and that the matter could not be viewed merely “within the narrow walls of a contract”.
The judgment also held that substantive employment rights accrue through long and continuous service, particularly where appointments were made after a fair selection process.
The High Court ultimately concluded that the petitioners’ case was fully covered by recent Supreme Court precedents favouring regularisation in cases involving long years of continuous service in perennial public functions.
