IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 107 Meena Rani State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing consider the case of petitioner for regularization of her service under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P benefits and arrears. 2. petitioner that the Memo No.140 dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P a period of 89 days. It is submitted that it is an undisputed fact on record that the said contract was extended from time to time and th petitioner had worked continuously and satisfactorily since 16.11.2009 27.3.2012 (Annexure P CWP-22896-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22896 of 2026 Date of decision : Meena Rani Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. K.S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present civil writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing consider the case of petitioner for regularization of her service under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-6) alongwith all consequential benefits and arrears. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was offered appointment as Sweeper vide Memo No.140 dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P a period of 89 days. It is submitted that it is an undisputed fact on record that the said contract was extended from time to time and th petitioner had worked continuously and satisfactorily since 16.11.2009 without any break in service. However, vide order dated 27.3.2012 (Annexure P-2) the respondent 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 22896 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-27.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA 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 her service under 6) alongwith all consequential submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner was offered appointment as Sweeper vide Memo No.140 dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-1) on contract basis for a period of 89 days. It is submitted that it is an undisputed fact on record that the said contract was extended from time to time and the petitioner had worked continuously and satisfactorily since without any break in service. However, vide order dated 2) the respondent-Department had relieved VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the petitioner from service. Thereafter the petitioner was ag appointed on contract basis vide order dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P 3) whereupon she worked on contract basis w.e.f. 01.4.2012 to 28.06.2012. Services of the petitioner thereafter verbally terminated on 31.1.2013. The petitioner accordingly sent a De claim statement before the Labour Court. Vide Award dated 01.09.2014 (Annexure P the petitioner with immediate effect. Learned counsel submits that thereafter in pursuance to the Award the pet 30.01.2015 (Annexure P service and continuously working till date. It is contended that accordingly having rendered 17 years’ continuous service, the petitioner is entitled for regulari 18.6.2014 (Annexure P notice on behalf of respondent 3. was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of No.31556 of 2018 others” arising out of and another vs. State of Haryana and others Supreme Court. 4. 1996 of 2024 CWP-22896-2026 (O & M) the petitioner from service. Thereafter the petitioner was ag appointed on contract basis vide order dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P 3) whereupon she worked on contract basis w.e.f. 01.4.2012 to 28.06.2012. Services of the petitioner thereafter verbally terminated on 31.1.2013. The petitioner accordingly sent a De claim statement before the Labour Court. Vide Award dated 01.09.2014 (Annexure P-4) the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect. Learned counsel submits that thereafter in pursuance to the Award the pet 30.01.2015 (Annexure P-5) on contractual basis and she is still in service and continuously working till date. It is contended that accordingly having rendered 17 years’ continuous service, the petitioner is entitled for regularization as per the Policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-6). Notice of motion. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana notice on behalf of respondent-State. It is noticed that the issue involved in the present petition was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of No.31556 of 2018 titled as “State of Haryana vs. Yogesh Tyagi and ” arising out of CWP No.17206 of 2014 and another vs. State of Haryana and others Supreme Court. It is pointed out that subsequently, 1996 of 2024 titled as “Madan Singh and others vs. State of 2 the petitioner from service. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed on contract basis vide order dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P- 3) whereupon she worked on contract basis w.e.f. 01.4.2012 to 28.06.2012. Services of the petitioner thereafter verbally terminated on 31.1.2013. The petitioner accordingly sent a Demand Notice and claim statement before the Labour Court. Vide Award dated 4) the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect. Learned counsel submits that thereafter in pursuance to the Award the petitioner was reinstated on on contractual basis and she is still in service and continuously working till date. It is contended that accordingly having rendered 17 years’ continuous service, the zation as per the Policy dated hree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts It is noticed that the issue involved in the present petition was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of SLP(C) State of Haryana vs. Yogesh Tyagi and CWP No.17206 of 2014 titled as “Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others” before the Hon’ble It is pointed out that subsequently, in Civil Appeal No. Madan Singh and others vs. State of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Haryana” 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-22896-2026 (O & M) ”, decided on 16.04.2026; the policies da 06.2014 (Annexure P-6 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 1810-2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others 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 Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in (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 th 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 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 res 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 3 the policies dated 16.06.2014 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 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 tely 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 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. disposed of in the above ter 7. ‘no objection 8. the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the above order dated 23.04.2026 pa Mohammad and others (supra); Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the CWP-22896-2026 (O & M) 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 employe 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 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 to the department along with a copy of 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 pa Mohammad and others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the 4 employees would be accorded fresh consideration in nt 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 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 licy 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 sh 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 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document claim of petitioner thereupon within a period of in mind the judgment Supreme Court in 9. July 27, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-22896-2026 (O & M) 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 stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 5 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 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document