IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 206 HEETENDRA KR ARUN STATE OF HARYANA & ORS CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. granted regularization terms of the policy dated 18.06.2014, as amended on 19.08.2014, with a few conditions including there the Instructions, which were not notified and as such, the same have supplanted the initial notification, vide which he was regularized. that as it may, the reasons beyond his control, he documents have been placed on reliance is placed on the judgment in Urban Development Authority 13.09.1994. Madan Singh and others vs IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of decision HEETENDRA KR ARUN Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was granted regularization vide order dated 18.07.2014, Annexure P terms of the policy dated 18.06.2014, as amended on 19.08.2014, with a few conditions including there to be no break the Instructions, which were not notified and as such, the same have supplanted the initial notification, vide which he was regularized. that as it may, the absence for more than 30 days was on account of reasons beyond his control, he having met with an accident, for which documents have been placed on record as Annexures P reliance is placed on the judgment in Anand Kumar vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, CWP 13.09.1994. Further that, his case is squarely covered by the judgment in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3823-2016 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.07.2026 ....Petitioner ...Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY nji, Sr. Advocate with Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner was 18.07.2014, Annexure P-12, in terms of the policy dated 18.06.2014, as amended on 19.08.2014, with a to be no break of more than 30 days as per the Instructions, which were not notified and as such, the same could not have supplanted the initial notification, vide which he was regularized. Be more than 30 days was on account of having met with an accident, for which record as Annexures P-18 to 21 and Anand Kumar vs. Haryana , CWP-8715-1994, decided on squarely covered by the judgment in . State of Haryana and others, Civil PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-3823-2016 -2- Appeal No.1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. He, on instructions, thus, prays that his case be reconsidered and decided in light thereof, in a time bound manner. 2. The aforesaid facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned State counsel, on instructions, states that the matter will be reconsidered and decided, within a period of 6 months, in accordance with law, taking note of the aforesaid submissions as also the judgments referred to hereinabove, uninfluenced by the order(s) impugned herein, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not address in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 3. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioner is found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to his interest, the same may be passed after granting opportunity of hearing to him and shall contain reasons, whereupon he shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. 4. Till then, the interim order dated 08.11.2017 shall remain continue. 15.07.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.07.15 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.