The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the continued disregard of judicial principles in service matters before observing that litigants should not be compelled to undertake prolonged legal battles merely to secure what is legitimately due to them.“It is a matter of concern that, despite the passage of time and repeated judicial pronouncements, the foundational principles continue to be disregarded in service matters,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, adding that a litigant was often forced to traverse “a prolonged and difficult legal journey merely to secure what is justly due.”The observations came as Justice Moudgil allowed a petition filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents by an employee through counsel Manu K Bhandari and Arjun Sawhni. He had challenged an order restricting his regularisation and consequential benefits to February 20, 2011.Justice Moudgil quashed the October 4, 2017, order before directing Punjab to regularise him from the date of eligibility under the applicable 2001 policy, release consequential benefits and pay arrears with 9 per cent annual interest.Justice Moudgil’s Bench was told that the petitioner was appointed as a daily-wage Mali-cum-Chowkidar on May 17, 1996. The state’s January 23, 2001, instructions provided for regularisation of employees who had completed three years of service. An order dated June 4, 2001, initially included him among 10 employees for regularisation, but his case was subsequently rejected on the ground that he did not fulfil the prescribed conditions. His services were later terminated. But the Labour Court held the termination illegal on October 13, 2005, and ordered his reinstatement.Justice Moudgil noted that the department had acknowledged that the employee was deemed to be in service from June 15, 1996. Holding that he had completed the requisite qualifying period, the Bench observed: “By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite conditions as it is clearly evident that the petitioner has completed three years of requisite service in the department.”Justice Moudgil: “The present case exemplifies how a litigant, often placed at the margins of the system, is compelled to traverse a prolonged and difficult legal journey merely to secure what is justly due.” The court directed the department concerned to pass a speaking order on the petitioner’s claim under the 2001 policy within two months of receiving the judgment.“The petitioner therefore be regularised with effect from the date of eligibility under the policy that governs him i.e. 2001 and the respondent department is also directed to release all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay, arrears thereof along with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the date it became due, till it’s actual realisation within a period of two months,” Justice Moudgil concluded.