IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 217 Balwan State of Haryana and others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his service under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P benefits and arrears. 2. the petitioner office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Kaithal vide appointment letter dated 28.05.2001 ever since. It is averred that the petitioner has rendered more than the prescribed qualifying service under the Regularization Policy and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. It is further CWP-28044-2022 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.28044 of 2022 Date of decision : Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate with Ms. Riya Kangra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present civil writ petition a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his service under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-1) alongwith all consequential benefits and arrears. Learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was appointed as a Part- office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Kaithal vide appointment letter 28.05.2001 and has been continuously discharging his duties ever since. It is averred that the petitioner has rendered more than the prescribed qualifying service under the Regularization Policy and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. It is further 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 28044 of 2022 (O & M) Date of decision :-16.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Deepak Sonak, Advocate with Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. Prayer in the present civil writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his service under 1) alongwith all consequential unsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that -Time Water Carrier in the office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Kaithal vide appointment letter and has been continuously discharging his duties ever since. It is averred that the petitioner has rendered more than the prescribed qualifying service under the Regularization Policy and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. It is further VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 11.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document submitted whose services have been regularized, not been considered by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Haryana in SLP (C) No. 33265 of 2018 has been stayed. The petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents requesting consideration of his cla been taken thereon, compelling him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. Bench of this Court, the writ petition was adjourned the outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 titled as “ vs. Yogesh tyagi and others “Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others 4. 1996 of 2024 Haryana” and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P accordingly prayed that consider th upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), and petitioner 5. came for considera CWP-28044-2022 (O & M) ubmitted that despite being similarly situated to other employees whose services have been regularized, the not been considered by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi v Haryana and the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court SLP (C) No. 33265 of 2018, whereby operation of the judgment has been stayed. The petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents requesting consideration of his cla been taken thereon, compelling him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Vide last order dated 06.12.2022 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, the writ petition was adjourned outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 titled as “ vs. Yogesh tyagi and others” filed against CWP Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others It is pointed out that subsequently, of 2024 titled as “Madan Singh and others vs. State of ”, 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 petitioner 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 2 that despite being similarly situated to other employees, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed Yogesh Tyagi v. State of and the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , whereby operation of the judgment has been stayed. The petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents requesting consideration of his claim, but no decision has been taken thereon, compelling him to invoke the extraordinary writ Vide last order dated 06.12.2022 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court, the writ petition was adjourned sine die to await outcome of SLP(C)No.31556 of 2018 titled as “State of Haryana filed against CWP-17206-2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others”. 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 tion before the Division Bench of this Court in VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 11.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1810 Haryana and others, 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: CWP-28044-2022 (O & M) 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 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 App 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 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 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, t 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 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 toda It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded 3 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, 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 vi (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 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 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. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.17 11.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. disposed of in the above terms. 7. ‘no objection 8. the parties, present 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 16, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-28044-2022 (O & M) consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the orde 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 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 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 thereupon 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 , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 4 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 In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each ployee 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 petitioner submits that he has Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for 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 11.01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document