CM-11423 CWP-8094 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 Kapil Dev and others State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-11423 fixing the actual date of hearing and for disposing of the present case in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in No. 1996 of 2024 Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026 on behalf of respondent present application is allowed. application, the same is sine die vide order dated Court is ordered to be taken up for hearing 11423-CWP-2026 in 8094-2016 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM- CWP Date of Decision: Kapil Dev and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. RK Doon, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 11423-CWP-2026 Prayer in this application filed under Section fixing the actual date of hearing and for disposing of the present case in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026. Notice of the application to learned counsel opposite. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana on behalf of respondent-State and has pleaded ‘no objection’ in case the present application is allowed. Heard. In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed; and the main case which was adjourned vide order dated 20.02.2019 by the Predecessor Bench of this Court is ordered to be taken up for hearing IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -11423-CWP-2026 in CWP-8094-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. RK Doon, Advocate for the applicant/petitioners. Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for fixing the actual date of hearing and for disposing of the present case in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Madan Singh and others vs. State of Notice of the application to learned counsel opposite. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice State and has pleaded ‘no objection’ in case the In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned in the and the main case which was adjourned 20.02.2019 by the Predecessor Bench of this Court is ordered to be taken up for hearing today itself, as prayed for. CPC is for fixing the actual date of hearing and for disposing of the present case in Civil Appeal Madan Singh and others vs. State of , accepts notice State and has pleaded ‘no objection’ in case the In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned in the and the main case which was adjourned 20.02.2019 by the Predecessor Bench of this RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-11423 CWP-8094 CWP-8094 1. India has been filed by the petitioner of Certiorari (Annexure representation has been dismissed by violating their own policy for regularization; AND/OR for issuance of a direction to the respondents t services of the petitioners in the light of regularization Polic 18.06.2014 (Annexure P respondent No. 3 dated names of the petitioners vide l the petitioners are fulfilling all the requisite terms and conditions of the regularization policy, whereas the similarly situated employees who were engaged after the petitioners have already been regularized by th department vie orders dated 25.08.2014 and 05.09.2014 (Annexure P Colly). 2. submits that petitioner No. expired during the pendency of present petition on death certificate dated handed over present petition may be dismissed qua petitioner No. 2 S/o Chander Singh. 3. 11423-CWP-2026 in 8094-2016 (O&M) -2- 8094-2016 (O&M) Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature Certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated (Annexure P-6, Colly) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which the representations filed by the petitioners for regularization of their services has been dismissed by violating their own policy for regularization; for issuance of a direction to the respondents t services of the petitioners in the light of regularization Polic 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-1 Colly.) and in view of respondent No. 3 dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P the petitioners vide letter dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure P the petitioners are fulfilling all the requisite terms and conditions of the regularization policy, whereas the similarly situated employees who were engaged after the petitioners have already been regularized by th department vie orders dated 25.08.2014 and 05.09.2014 (Annexure P At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2-Rajesh Kumar S/o Chander Singh has expired during the pendency of present petition on death certificate dated 20.11.2025 of petitioner No. 2 handed over in Cour is taken on record. It is etition may be dismissed qua petitioner No. 2 S/o Chander Singh. Ordered accordingly. etition under Article 226 of the Constitution of for issuance of a writ in the nature for quashing the impugned orders dated 11.02.2016 6, Colly) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which the filed by the petitioners for regularization of their services has been dismissed by violating their own policy for regularization; for issuance of a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the light of regularization Policy dated ) and in view of the list forwarded by 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-4) recommending the etter dated 03.07.2014 (Annexure P-2) as the petitioners are fulfilling all the requisite terms and conditions of the regularization policy, whereas the similarly situated employees who were engaged after the petitioners have already been regularized by the department vie orders dated 25.08.2014 and 05.09.2014 (Annexure P-10, At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners Rajesh Kumar S/o Chander Singh has expired during the pendency of present petition on 12.10.2025. Copy of of petitioner No. 2-Rajesh Kumar in Cour is taken on record. It is accordingly prayed that etition may be dismissed qua petitioner No. 2-Rajesh Kumar etition under Article 226 of the Constitution of for issuance of a writ in the nature 11.02.2016 6, Colly) passed by respondent No. 3 vide which the filed by the petitioners for regularization of their services o regularize the dated the list forwarded by 4) recommending the 2) as the petitioners are fulfilling all the requisite terms and conditions of the regularization policy, whereas the similarly situated employees who were e 10, RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-11423 CWP-8094 4. to 5, namely, Kapil Dev, Sanjay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar S/o Sultan Singh and Parveen Sain as Data Entry Ope 2011, August 2008 and May 2011, respectively through approved sources i.e. HARTRON approved Work Stations against the sanctioned vacant posts 5. dated 18.06.2014 dated 20.06.2014, 14.08.2014 and 20.08.2014 (Annexure P whereby it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioner joined Data Entry Operators on contractual basis w.e.f. February 2009, June 2011, August 2008 and May 2011, respectively regularization regard, the petitione respondents to consider dismissed by the (Annexure P 18.06.2014 CWP-17206 Haryana and others Policy was 11423-CWP-2026 in 8094-2016 (O&M) -3- It is inter alia submitted that , namely, Kapil Dev, Sanjay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar S/o Sultan Singh and Parveen Saini, were appointed at various Divisions of Rohtak Circle Data Entry Operators on contractual basis 2011, August 2008 and May 2011, respectively through approved sources i.e. HARTRON approved Work Stations against the sanctioned vacant posts. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue dated 18.06.2014 which was subsequently amended vide notifications dated 20.06.2014, 14.08.2014 and 20.08.2014 (Annexure P it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for larization. It is submitted that as petitioner Data Entry Operators on contractual basis w.e.f. February 2009, June 2011, August 2008 and May 2011, respectively regularization as per aforesaid Policy (Annexure P regard, the petitioners have also moved a representation respondents to consider their case for dismissed by the respondents vide Speaking Order dated (Annexure P-6, Colly). However, in the meantime, the 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) was challenged before this Court by way of 17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said as quashed by this Court inter alia submitted that the petitioners No. 1 and 3 , namely, Kapil Dev, Sanjay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar S/o Sultan Singh at various Divisions of Rohtak Circle on contractual basis w.e.f. February 2009, June 2011, August 2008 and May 2011, respectively through approved sources i.e. HARTRON approved Work Stations against the sanctioned In the meantime, the respondent State had issued the Policy ch was subsequently amended vide notifications dated 20.06.2014, 14.08.2014 and 20.08.2014 (Annexure P-1, Colly.) it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for larization. It is submitted that as petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 5 have Data Entry Operators on contractual basis w.e.f. February 2009, June 2011, August 2008 and May 2011, respectively, they are entitled to (Annexure P-1, Colly.). In this moved a representation before the case for regularization which was respondents vide Speaking Order dated 11.02.2016 However, in the meantime, the Policy dated challenged before this Court by way of Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said inter alia on the ground that said RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-11423 CWP-8094 Policy violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 6. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of light of the policy decision dated 1 petitioners 7. for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and othe others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: 11423-CWP-2026 in 8094-2016 (O&M) -4- violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went befor Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid Policy dated upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 5 light of the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P be granted all consequential benefits. Learned State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in titled as Aas Mohammad and othe which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on Policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 5 for regularization in 6.2014 (Annexure P-1, Colly.) and be granted all consequential benefits. State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810- titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the s of the employees has been Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-11423 CWP-8094 8. in the above terms. 9. objection’ to the same. 11423-CWP-2026 in 8094-2016 (O&M) -5- State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgme Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 9. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on po accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fre consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner to the same. State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Although various submissions have been advanced pondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to es involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along s order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of counsel for the petitioners submits that he has ‘no RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-11423 CWP-8094 10. parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 pas others (supra); Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner No. 1 and 3 to 5 within a period of judgment dated 16.04.2026 Madan Singh 11. 20.07.2026 rishu 11423-CWP-2026 in 8094-2016 (O&M) -6- Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner No. 1 and 3 to 5 for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the sed in case of Aas Mohammad and with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon from today, while keeping in mind the passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.22 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.