CWP-20708 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 116 Krishan Lal and others State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. India has been filed by the petitioner of Mandamus petitioners decision dated juniors/similar situated employees of the petitioners have been regularized and also to grant all 2. petitioners Sweepers in the years 2009 and 2010 as detailed in para No. 2 of the petition, in the office of respondent No petitioners were sponsored/forwarded by the Employment Exchange. However, s 31.01.2013. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid termination before the 20708-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Krishan Lal and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition under Article 226 of the India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature andamus directing the respondents to consider the cla for regularization of their services decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P juniors/similar situated employees of the petitioners have been regularized and also to grant all consequential benefits It is inter alia submitted by learned that the petitioners were appointed as Ward Servants and Sweepers in the years 2009 and 2010 as detailed in para No. 2 of the in the office of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 petitioners were sponsored/forwarded by the Employment Exchange. However, services of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 13. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid termination Labour Court, concerned. In pursuance of different Awards IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20708-2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. etition under Article 226 of the Constitution of for issuance of a writ in the nature directing the respondents to consider the claim of the of their services in light of the policy (Annexure P-3) or from the date of the juniors/similar situated employees of the petitioners have been regularized etc. submitted by learned counsel for the rs were appointed as Ward Servants and Sweepers in the years 2009 and 2010 as detailed in para No. 2 of the . 3 and 4. The names of the petitioners were sponsored/forwarded by the Employment Exchange. ervices of the petitioners were terminated vide order dated 13. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid termination In pursuance of different Awards Constitution of for issuance of a writ in the nature m of the in light of the policy from the date of the juniors/similar situated employees of the petitioners have been regularized RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20708 passed by the Labour Court concerned petition) directing the respondents to re immediate effect with all consequential benefits for back wages petitioners were re are continuing on the said 3. dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, petitioners Sweepers, (Annexure P Notice dated consider th Policy dated Court by way of vs. State of Haryana and others above said Polic that said judgment passed in (2006) 4 SCC 1 4. the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to 20708-2026 -2- passed by the Labour Court concerned (as detailed in para directing the respondents to re immediate effect with all consequential benefits for back wages petitioners were re-instated on 31.01.2013 continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby ‘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 have joined in the years 2009 and 2010 , they are entitled to regularization (Annexure P-4). In this regard, the petitioner dated 01.06.2026 (Annexure P-5) upon the consider their case for regularization. However, in the meantime, the Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-4) Court by way of CWP-17206-2014 titled as vs. State of Haryana and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Policy was quashed by this Court that said Policy violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide 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 to (as detailed in para No. 3 of the directing the respondents to re-instate the petitioners with immediate effect with all consequential benefits for back wages; all the 13; and since then, petitioners post without break or any complaint. In the meantime, the respondent State had issued the Policy whereby it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as in the years 2009 and 2010 as Ward Servants and regularization as per aforesaid Policy . In this regard, the petitioners have also served Legal 5) upon the respondents to . However, in the meantime, the 4) was challenged before this as Yogesh Tyagi and another . Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench tary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20708 regularize services of the employees has been elaborately spe accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner light of the policy decision dated 18. petitioners 5. for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide judgment d paras of which, read as under: 20708-2026 -3- regularize services of the employees has been elaborately spe accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners individually light of the policy decision dated 18.0 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 others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment d 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 connecte 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 Gener statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the 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 (supra). regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to individually for regularization in 06.2014 (Annexure P-4) and tial 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 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. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed 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 Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the 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 im keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20708 20708-2026 -4- 8. Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such argumen 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 (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 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 princip 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. 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 c 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh at 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an te 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. 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. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20708 6. in the above terms. 7. objection’ to the same. 8. parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months 16.04.2026 case (Supra) 9. 10.07.2026 rishu 20708-2026 -5- It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of in the above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner to the same. 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 Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of counsel for the petitioners submits that he has ‘no Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed 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 within a period of from today, while keeping in mind the judgment dated n’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.