CWP-20396 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 115 Seema Devi and others State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner writ in the nature of regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and all other attendant service benefits admissible as per law. 2. petitioners Haryana, in order to implement the scheme framed for implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Viol issued a Public Advertisement (Annexure P various posts including the pos thereto, the petitioners herein were appointed as Multipurpose Worker(s) on contractual basis 20396-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Seema Devi and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. JS Mor, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition under Article Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) with including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and all other attendant service benefits admissible as per law. It is inter alia submitted by learned that the Women and Child Haryana, in order to implement the scheme framed for implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Viol issued a Public Advertisement (Annexure P posts including the post of Multipurpose Worker. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners herein were appointed as Multipurpose Worker(s) on contractual basis, on the basis of interview and merit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20396-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. JS Mor, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G., Haryana. etition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a directing the respondents to consider and regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy 5) with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and all other attendant service benefits admissible as per law. submitted by learned counsel for the and Child Development Department, Haryana, in order to implement the scheme framed for implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had issued a Public Advertisement (Annexure P-1) inviting applications for of Multipurpose Worker. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners herein were appointed as Multipurpose Worker(s) on the basis of interview and merit-based selection of the for issuance of a and regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of Government Policy including continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay and RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20396 process against the sanctioned posts under the dep Copy of appointment letters issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 15.02.2010 and petitioner No. 6 dated 25.02.2010 are annexed as Annexures P and P-2/1, respectively. The petitioners have joined their duties as Multipurpose Worker on differe year 2010, are continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. 3. dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexure As per the Policy dated 16.06.2014 Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitl regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (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 also entitled for regularization. It is submitted that Department in the year 2010 regularization No. 1 to 4 have Legal Notice dated 15.09.2017 (Annexures P whereas petitioner No. 5 submitted representation d (Annexure P regularization 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of CWP-17206 Haryana and others 20396-2026 -2- process against the sanctioned posts under the dep Copy of appointment letters issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 15.02.2010 and petitioner No. 6 dated 25.02.2010 are annexed as Annexures P 2/1, respectively. The petitioners have joined their duties as Multipurpose Worker on different dates at the place of their posting as detailed in para No. 5 of the petition; continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue the Policies 6.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexure As per the Policy dated 16.06.2014 Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitl regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (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 also entitled for regularization. It is submitted that the petitioners Department in the year 2010 as Multipurpose Worker regularization as per the aforesaid policies. No. 1 to 4 have submitted representation dated Notice dated 15.09.2017 (Annexures P petitioner No. 5 submitted representation d (Annexure P-7), to the respondents to consider regularization. However, in the meantime, the aforesaid Policies 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were 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, both the above process against the sanctioned posts under the departmental scheme. Copy of appointment letters issued to petitioner No. 1 dated 15.02.2010 and petitioner No. 6 dated 25.02.2010 are annexed as Annexures P-2 2/1, respectively. The petitioners have joined their duties as at the place of their posting in as detailed in para No. 5 of the petition; and since then, they continuing on the said post without break or any complaint. In the meantime, the respondent State had issue the Policies 6.2014 and 18.06.2014 (Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively). (Annexure P-4), Haryana Government had taken a decision that all Group ‘B’ contract employees, who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled to regularization. Similarly, vide Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5), it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are also entitled for titioners who have joined the Multipurpose Worker, are entitled to as per the aforesaid policies. In this regard, the petitioners submitted representation dated 12.09.2017 as well as Notice dated 15.09.2017 (Annexures P-6 and P-8, respectively); petitioner No. 5 submitted representation dated 19.09.2017 , to the respondents to consider their case for . However, in the meantime, the aforesaid Policies dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 were challenged before this Court by way of Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of . Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, both the above RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20396 said Policies were quashed by this Court said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in SCC 1. 4. the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; 18.06.2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. to the respondents to consider the claim of the for regularization in light of the policy decision (Annexure P petitioners 5. for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 2025titled 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: 20396-2026 -3- said Policies were quashed by this Court said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 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 policies dated 16. .2014 have 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 for regularization in light of the policy decision (Annexure P-4) or policy decision dated 18. 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 2025titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant aras 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 laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the said Policies were quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said Policies violated the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 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 whereby the aforesaid policies dated 16.06.2014 and .2014 have been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners individually for regularization in light of the policy decisions dated 16.06.2014 ) or policy decision dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-5) 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- 2025titled 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 ered 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 RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20396 6. in the above terms. 7. objection’ to the same. 20396-2026 -4- 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 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 princ 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 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 9. In that view of the matter, all t 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 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 consid 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 regularize services of the employees has been Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a nt 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 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 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 the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for ion 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 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 with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. ending 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 2026.07.13 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20396 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. 09.07.2026 rishu 20396-2026 -5- 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 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 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 e 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 18:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.