IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 205 Sunheri Devi State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari P-10), whereby his claim for regularization of service has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ of directing the respondents to continue him in service as pursuance of the regularization order dated 4), along with all consequential service benefits, including seniority. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services with effect from the date on which his junior, Sh. Khazan Singh dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P benefits. CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13693 of 2015 Date of decision : Sunheri Devi Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Certiorari for quashing the order dated , whereby his claim for regularization of service has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ of directing the respondents to continue him in service as pursuance of the regularization order dated , along with all consequential service benefits, including seniority. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services with effect from the date on which his junior, Sh. Khazan Singh, was regularized, i.e. 01.02.1996 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8), together with all consequential 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 13693 of 2015 (O & M) Date of decision :-14.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sandeep Singal, Advocate Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a for quashing the order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure , whereby his claim for regularization of service has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to continue him in service as Beldar in pursuance of the regularization order dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P- , along with all consequential service benefits, including seniority. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize his services with effect from the date on which his junior, 01.02.1996, in terms of order together with all consequential VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2. petitioner that daily-wage basi and continuously discharged her duties. It is averred that her services were orally terminated in reason. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice, pursuant to which the appropriate Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Court, Rohtak vide Court, Rohtak, vide termination of the petitioner to be illegal and directed her reinstatement on the post of Beldar with continuity of service and 50% back wages pleaded that the re reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service and payment of back wages. According to the petitioner, the responde challenge the said A Learned counsel for the petitioner further Supreme Court, in Uma Devi and others Governments to consider regularization of eligible employees who had rendered long years of continuou vacant posts. It is the continuously since down in the said judgment and became entitled to regularization. CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as a wage basis in October, 1988 against a sanctioned vacant post and continuously discharged her duties. It is averred that her services were orally terminated in January, 1997 reason. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice, pursuant to which the appropriate Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Court, Rohtak vide Reference No.451 dated 10.05.2001 Court, Rohtak, vide Award dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure P termination of the petitioner to be illegal and directed her reinstatement on the post of Beldar with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of demand notice, i.e. pleaded that the respondents implemented the sai reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service and payment of back wages. According to the petitioner, the responde challenge the said Award and, therefore, the same attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner further Supreme Court, in “Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others”, decided on 10.04.2006 Governments to consider regularization of eligible employees who had rendered long years of continuous service against sanctioned vacant posts. It is the case of the petitioner continuously since October, 1988, she fulfilled the conditions laid down in the said judgment and became entitled to regularization. 2 submitted by learned counsel for the the petitioner was initially appointed as a Beldar on against a sanctioned vacant post and continuously discharged her duties. It is averred that her services January, 1997 without assigning any reason. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice, pursuant to which the appropriate Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Reference No.451 dated 10.05.2001. The Labour Award dated 12.08.2005 (Annexure P-1), held the termination of the petitioner to be illegal and directed her reinstatement on the post of Beldar with continuity of service and from the date of demand notice, i.e. 21.10.1999. It is spondents implemented the said Award by reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service and payment of back wages. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not ward and, therefore, the same attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Hon'ble Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. 10.04.2006, directed the State Governments to consider regularization of eligible employees who s service against sanctioned case of the petitioner that having been working , she fulfilled the conditions laid down in the said judgment and became entitled to regularization. The VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document petitioner regularization of her services. However, in view of subsequent developments, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition vide order dated (Annexure P the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State of Haryana issued the amended on regularizatio of the said policy, the petitioner's services were regularized on the post of Beldar thereto, the petitioner submitted her joining report on (Annexure P certificate. notification dated Regularization Policy dated amendment, respondent No.3 passed an order dated (Annexure P According to the petitioner, the said order was passed without affording her any opportunity of hearing. submitted in February, 1990 regularized vide order dated from 01.02.1996 similarly situated, her claim for regularization was not granted. CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) petitioner, thereafter, filed CWP No.20009 of 2013 regularization of her services. However, in view of subsequent developments, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition vide order dated (Annexure P-2) passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State of Haryana issued the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 amended on 14.08.2014 (Annexure P-3 collectively) regularization of eligible Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. In terms of the said policy, the petitioner's services were regularized on the Beldar vide order dated 01.08.2014 (Annexure P thereto, the petitioner submitted her joining report on (Annexure P-5) and also furnished the requisite medical fitness certificate. Thereafter, the State Government issued another notification dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure P Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014. Consequent upon the said mendment, respondent No.3 passed an order dated (Annexure P-7) withdrawing/de-regularizing the petitioner's services. According to the petitioner, the said order was passed without affording her any opportunity of hearing. submitted that one Sh. Khazan Singh, who was appointed as February, 1990 and is stated to be junior to the petitioner, was regularized vide order dated 14.07.2009 (Annexure P 01.02.1996. According to the petitioner, despite similarly situated, her claim for regularization was not granted. 3 CWP No.20009 of 2013 seeking regularization of her services. However, in view of subsequent developments, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition vide order dated 31.10.2014 ed by a predecessor Bench of this Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the State of Haryana Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014, subsequently 3 collectively), providing for n of eligible Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees. In terms of the said policy, the petitioner's services were regularized on the 01.08.2014 (Annexure P-4). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her joining report on 05.08.2014 and also furnished the requisite medical fitness Thereafter, the State Government issued another 20.08.2014 (Annexure P-6) amending the . Consequent upon the said mendment, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 25.08.2014 regularizing the petitioner's services. According to the petitioner, the said order was passed without affording her any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further , who was appointed as T-Mate and is stated to be junior to the petitioner, was 14.07.2009 (Annexure P-8) with effect . According to the petitioner, despite being senior and similarly situated, her claim for regularization was not granted. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. filed CWP No.22754 of 2014 vide common judgment dated CWP No.19224 of 2014, Vikas v. State of Haryana and others directing the respondents to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a fresh order. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, th opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order dated petitioner's claim for regularization, primarily on the ground that she did not possess the pr Beldar. 4. approached this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had already been regularized vide order dated had joined pursuant thereto, and acquired a vested right which could not have been taken away by the subsequent amendment t It is also the petitioner's case that, in any event, she is entitled to regularization from the date on which her junior, namely Singh, was regularized, along with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service, CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) Aggrieved by the order dated CWP No.22754 of 2014, which was vide common judgment dated 29.11.2014 (Annexure P CWP No.19224 of 2014, Vikas v. State of Haryana and others directing the respondents to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a fresh order. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure P petitioner's claim for regularization, primarily on the ground that she did not possess the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law wn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had already been regularized vide order dated had joined pursuant thereto, and acquired a vested right which could not have been taken away by the subsequent amendment t It is also the petitioner's case that, in any event, she is entitled to regularization from the date on which her junior, namely , was regularized, along with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service, seniority and other attendant benefits. 4 Aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2014, the petitioner , which was disposed of by this Court 29.11.2014 (Annexure P-9) rendered in CWP No.19224 of 2014, Vikas v. State of Haryana and others, directing the respondents to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a fresh order. e petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the respondents passed 06.05.2015 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the petitioner's claim for regularization, primarily on the ground that she escribed educational qualification for the post of Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition contending that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law wn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had already been regularized vide order dated 01.08.2014, had joined pursuant thereto, and acquired a vested right which could not have been taken away by the subsequent amendment to the policy. It is also the petitioner's case that, in any event, she is entitled to regularization from the date on which her junior, namely Sh. Khazan , was regularized, along with all consequential service benefits seniority and other attendant benefits. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. Bench of this Court to await the decision of SLP 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid Policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld; and the permissib to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consi regularizati (Annexure P 7. came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810 Haryana and others, 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) Vide last order dated 05.2.2020 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, the present writ petition was adjourned to await the decision of SLP(C) No.33265 of 2018 It is pointed out that the matter Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid 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 consider the claim of the petitioner regularization in light of the policy decision dated 18.06.201 (Annexure P-4) and petitioner 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 1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 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 Suprem 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. 5 05.2.2020 passed by a predecessor present writ petition was adjourned sine die (C) No.33265 of 2018. the matter had gone before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid Policy dated 18.06.2014 has been le 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 der the claim of the petitioner individually for on in light of the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 be granted all consequential benefits. 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 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - 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, he 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 lable for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. disposed of in the above terms. CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) 7. 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 claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submission 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 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 fr 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 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. 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation 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 petiti disposed of in the above terms. 6 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 ployee (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 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 (supra). 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 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. t 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 etitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees 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 All pending misc. application(s), if any, also It is prayed that the present writ petition be also VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. ‘no objection 10. the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Mohammad and others (supra); Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner thereupon within a period of in mind the judgment Supreme Court in 11. July 14, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-13693-2015 (O & M) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection’ to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Mohammad and others (supra); 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 hereupon within a period of 06 months in mind the judgment dated 16.04.2026 Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (Supra) Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 7 counsel for the petitioner submits that he has 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 with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the for regularization; and pass a speaking order from today, while keeping dated 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble ’s case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 09.36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document