IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 122 Bijender Dhaka and others 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 petitioners for regularization of their services under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P consequen 2. petitioner No.1 was engaged as Chowkidar under the Public Health Engineering Department; whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 were engaged as Pump Operators in the year 2006 as evident from their Experience Certificates (Annexures P and 2 were engaged on 07.9.2006, whereas petitioner No.3 was engaged in the service on 27.9.2006, CWP-23174-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23174 of 2026 Date of decision : Bijender Dhaka and others Versus Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Lakshya Saini, 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 a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their services under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P consequential benefits and arrears. Learned counsel for the petitioners petitioner No.1 was engaged as Chowkidar under the Public Health Engineering Department; whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 were engaged as Pump Operators in the year 2006 as evident from their Experience Certificates (Annexures P-4 to P and 2 were engaged on 07.9.2006, whereas petitioner No.3 was engaged in the service on 27.9.2006, 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 23174 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-28.07.2026 …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Lakshya Saini, Advocate Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. 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 petitioners for regularization of their services under policy dated 18.6.2014 (Annexure P-6-A) alongwith all Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that petitioner No.1 was engaged as Chowkidar under the Public Health Engineering Department; whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 were engaged as Pump Operators in the year 2006 as evident from their 4 to P-6). The petitioners No.1 and 2 were engaged on 07.9.2006, whereas petitioner No.3 was engaged in the service on 27.9.2006, and petitioners have been VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document continuously discharging their petitioner under the Regularization Policy and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. their services, the petitioners had moved representations to respondents No.2, 3 and 4 dated 01.4.2026, 01.4 (Annexures P Notice dated 05.5.2026 (Annexure P respondents been taken thereon, compelling him jurisdiction of this Court. other similarly situated employees have been regularized, claim of the petitioner Reliance has also Yogesh Tyagi v. State of Haryana the Hon'ble Supreme Court in operation of the judgment has been stayed. 3. was earlier awaiting adjudication in view of the pendency of No.31556 of 2018 others” arising out of and another vs. State o Supreme Court. 4. 1996 of 2024 CWP-23174-2026 (O & M) continuously discharging their duties ever since. petitioners have rendered more than the prescribed qu under the Regularization Policy and possesses the requisite educational qualifications. It is submitted that for regularization of their services, the petitioners had moved representations to respondents No.2, 3 and 4 dated 01.4.2026, 01.4 (Annexures P-8/T, P-9/T and P-10/T) respectively. Thereafter, Legal Notice dated 05.5.2026 (Annexure P-11) was also given to the respondents requesting consideration of his claim, but no decision has been taken thereon, compelling him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further similarly situated employees have been regularized, of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Yogesh Tyagi v. State of Haryana and the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 33265 of 2018 operation of the judgment has been stayed. 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 duties ever since. As such the rendered more than the prescribed qualifying service under the Regularization Policy and possesses the requisite It is submitted that for regularization of their services, the petitioners had moved representations to respondents No.2, 3 and 4 dated 01.4.2026, 01.4.2026 and 08.4.2026 10/T) respectively. Thereafter, Legal 11) was also given to the requesting consideration of his claim, but no decision has to invoke the extraordinary writ It is further pointed out that services of similarly situated employees have been regularized, but the has not been considered by the respondents. been placed upon the judgment of this Court in and the interim order passed by SLP (C) No. 33265 of 2018, whereby operation of the judgment has been stayed. volved 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 f 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 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Haryana” and 18.06.2014 accordingly prayed that consider the claim of the petitioner upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra), and pe 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-23174-2026 (O & M) ”, decided on 16.04.2026; the policies dated 16. 06.2014 (Annexure P-6/A 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 1810-2025 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 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 re 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 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 p 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 3 the policies dated 16.06.2014 6/A 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 hich 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 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 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 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 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 (s Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner CWP-23174-2026 (O & M) 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 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 employe 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 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 4 the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ase 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 ssing 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 dan 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 deration 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 employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a m 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 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 for regularization; and pass a speaking order VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document thereupon within a period of in mind the judgme Supreme Court in 9. July 28, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-23174-2026 (O & M) 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 Reportable Yes / No 5 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 2026.07.31 15.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document