IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 102 Vijay Kumar and others State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the policy instructions dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P eligible to be considered for regularization of their services on completion of three years and also granting them all consequential benefits i.e 28.5.2014 alongwith interest @18% per annum. 2. petitioners in the years the respondent CWP-5419-2022 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5419 of 2022 Date of decision : Vijay Kumar and others Versus Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for Mr. Sushil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the policy instructions dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P gible to be considered for regularization of their services on completion of three years and also granting them all consequential benefits i.e. seniority, pay fixation and arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.5.2014 alongwith interest @18% per annum. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were initially engaged on daily wages in the years 2006 and 2010 and have been continuously working with the respondent-Department since then. It is their case that they have 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5419 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision :-14.07.2026 …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA s. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for Mr. Sushil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition is for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as per the policy instructions dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-1) as they are gible to be considered for regularization of their services on completion of three years and also granting them all consequential . seniority, pay fixation and arrears of salary w.e.f. 28.5.2014 alongwith interest @18% per annum. submitted by learned counsel for the that the petitioners were initially engaged on daily wages and have been continuously working with Department since then. It is their case that they have VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document completed more than work and conduct have remained satisfactory, and no adverse material has ever been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the State Government framed the Regularization Policy dated of eligible Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees, and pursuant thereto, the department sought particulars of eligible employees. Their names were included in the list of employees fulfilling conditions, and the Executive Engineer also recommended their cases for regularization by forwarding the requisite proposals to the competent authority. However, despite such recommendations, no final decision was taken and the services of t regularized. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted representations and also served a legal notice dated no avail. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 24077 of 2016 CWP No. 17206 of 2014 bunch of petitions including CWP No. 17206 of 2014 was dismissed on 31.05.2018 was set aside. However, th by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Petition preferred by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contend that the petitioners satisfy all the conditions prescribed entitled to regularization of their services with effect from CWP-5419-2022 (O & M) completed more than 240 days of service in each calendar year work and conduct have remained satisfactory, and no adverse material has ever been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the State Government framed the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 of eligible Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees, and pursuant thereto, the department sought particulars of eligible employees. Their names were included in the list of employees fulfilling conditions, and the Executive Engineer also recommended their cases for regularization by forwarding the requisite proposals to the competent authority. However, despite such recommendations, no final decision was taken and the services of t regularized. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted representations and also served a legal notice dated no avail. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 24077 of 2016, which was ordered to be heard along with CWP No. 17206 of 2014 involving the same issue. Subsequently, the bunch of petitions including CWP No. 17206 of 2014 was dismissed 31.05.2018, whereby the Regularization Policy dated was set aside. However, the operation of the said judgment was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.11.2018 Petition preferred by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contend that the petitioners satisfy all the conditions prescribed under the Regularization Policy dated entitled to regularization of their services with effect from 2 240 days of service in each calendar year, their work and conduct have remained satisfactory, and no adverse material has ever been recorded against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the State Government framed the providing for regularization of eligible Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees, and pursuant thereto, the department sought particulars of eligible employees. Their names were included in the list of employees fulfilling the prescribed conditions, and the Executive Engineer also recommended their cases for regularization by forwarding the requisite proposals to the competent authority. However, despite such recommendations, no final decision was taken and the services of the petitioners were not regularized. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted representations and also served a legal notice dated 26.05.2016, but to no avail. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing s ordered to be heard along with involving the same issue. Subsequently, the bunch of petitions including CWP No. 17206 of 2014 was dismissed , whereby the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 e operation of the said judgment was stayed 26.11.2018 in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contend that the petitioners satisfy all the conditions under the Regularization Policy dated 18.06.2014 and are entitled to regularization of their services with effect from 28.05.2014, VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document along with consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears. Alleging that the inaction of the respondent discriminatory and violative of Articles of India, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for regularization of their services and grant of all consequential benefi 3. Bench of this Court, the writ petition was adjourned the outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 filed against CWP 2014 titled as others. 4. 1996 of 2024 Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P accordingly prayed that consider the claim of the petitioner upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), and petitioner 5. 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-5419-2022 (O & M) along with consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears. Alleging that the inaction of the respondent discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of India, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for regularization of their services and grant of all consequential benefits. Vide last order dated 17.3.2022 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, the writ petition was adjourned the outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 filed against CWP 2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryan It is pointed out that subsequently, 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; the policies dated 16. 06.2014 (Annexure P-1 herein) have been upheld accordingly prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of aforesaid policies upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and petitioners 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 1810-2025titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 026, 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 3 along with consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears. Alleging that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for regularization of their services and grant of Vide last order dated 17.3.2022 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, the writ petition was adjourned sine die to await the outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 filed against CWP-17206- Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and It is pointed out that subsequently, in Civil Appeal No. Madan Singh and others vs. State of the policies dated 16.06.2014 1 herein) have been upheld. It is direction be issued to the respondents to in light of aforesaid policies upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case be granted all consequential benefits. 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 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 026, 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5419-2022 (O & M) 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 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, Hary 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 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 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. 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 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 4 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, 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. 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 ng 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 ew 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). 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 laim 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 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 itate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. disposed of in the above terms. 7. ‘no objection 8. 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 9. July 14, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-5419-2022 (O & M) 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 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 ana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months in mind the judgment dated 16.04.2026 preme 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 5 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 counsel for the petitioners submits that she 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 ana/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 2026.07.15 18.21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document