CWP-26130 IN THE HI 120 Gopal and ot State of Hary CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. of India has the responde regularizatio 18.06.2014 juniors/simil regularized a 2. petitioners labourers on in the year 1 petitioner N Jaibir was ap have been il order by wa vide separate 130-2026 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H CWP Date o and others Versus f Haryana and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Tarun Kaushik and Mr. Yas for the petitioners. I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition under Art ia has been filed by the petitioners spondent-Authorities to consider the rization of their service in the ligh 2014 (Annexure P-3) or from the /similar situated employees of th rized and also to grant all consequentia It is, inter alia, submitted b that the petitioners who are 04 on different dates i.e. petitioner N year 1987; petitioner No. 2-Sombir ner No. 3-Rajbir appointed on 01.02 was appointed on 15.07.1990. Howev een illegally terminated. The petition by way of separate references before eparate Awards between the years 20 ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-26130-2026 Date of Decision: 18.08.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA r. Yash Kaushik, Advocates er Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the claim of the petitioners for e light of policy decision dated m the date of services of the of the petitioners have been quential benefits etc. itted by learned counsel for the 04 in number were appointed as oner No. 1-Gopal was appointed as was appointed on 07.02.1995; 01.02.1991; and petitioner No. 4- However, services of the petitioners etitioners have challenged the said efore the Labour Court whereupon ars 2006 and 2008 details of which the d as d as 995; ners said pon hich RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent. CWP-26130 are mentione No. 5 of the submits that respective p petitioners a 18.06.2014 ( upheld by t 16.04.2026 Finder Doc dated 01.07.2 3. petitioners disposed of decide their bound mann in Madan Si 4. 5. on behalf of case, the pra is accepted. tenure(s) of they have eligible for r 6. said issue ca 130-2026 -2- ntioned in tabulated form in para No. of the paper-book), the petitioners wer ts that since then the petitioners are tive posts to the satisfaction of the ners are entitled for regularization in t 2014 (Annexure P-3). It is contended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2026 in Madan Singh and others Doc Id # 2884394. The petitioners 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-5) in this rega Learned counsel for the pe would be satisfied at this stag ed of with a direction is issued to r their legal notice dated 01.07.2026 manner, in view of law laid down by n Singh’s case (supra). Notice of motion. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A half of respondent-State and submits t the prayer made by learned counsel fo epted. It is also submitted by learned of each of the petitioner(s) needs to rendered continuous and satisfa e for regularization. It is pointed out by learned co sue came up for consideration before ra No. 2 of the writ petition (at page ere reinstated. Learned counsel ers are regularly working on their of the respondents. As such, the on in terms of policy decision dated tended that the said policy has been ourt in its recent judgment dated ers vs. State of Haryana: Law have also served a legal notice is regard upon the respondents. petitioners submits that the s stage if the present petition is d to respondents to consider and .2026 (Annexure P-5) in a time wn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ddl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice bmits that she has ‘no objection’ in nsel for the petitioners at this stage, arned State counsel that the service eeds to be ascertained as to whether satisfactory service to make them ned counsel for the State that the before the Division Bench of this age nsel their the ated een aw tice tice in age, vice ther hem RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent. CWP-26130 Court in LPA of Haryana 23.04.2026, 130-2026 -3- LPA-1810-2025 titled as Aas Moh yana and others, which was dispos 2026, relevant paras of which, read as “5. Today, when the matter i that the Hon'ble Supreme Co issue raised in the case of Y considering a bunch of conne rendered in Madan Singh and Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, 6. The judgment of the elaborately deals with the polic by the State of Haryana and ke laid down by the Constitutio (supra), the permissible course State to regularize services o elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate Gen statement before the Court that State to examine the individ employee (either appellants o separate orders would be passe claim keeping in view the pr Hon'ble Supreme Court in t (supra). 8. Although various submi on behalf of the respondents wr inclined to delve upon such statement made by the learned A as per which, the claim of all em fresh consideration in the li Hon'ble Supreme Court in t (supra). 9. In that view of the m disposed of with a direction up Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to a the claim of employees involve passing a speaking order in regularization within a period of the learned Single Judge un in the light of the principles Supreme Court in the case of M appropriate order in respect employees is passed, status qu maintained. It goes without regularization based on poli accorded consideration keeping down by the Hon'ble Supreme Singh (supra) and the order im Mohammad and others vs. State disposed of vide judgment dated ead as under: - tter is taken up, we are informed Court has finally decided the of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while onnected cases, vide judgment and others vs. State of Haryana, 024, decided on 16.04.2026. the Hon'ble Supreme Court policy for regularization framed d keeping in view the principles itutional Bench in Uma Devi urse of action available for the es of the employees has been General, Haryana, makes a that if a liberty is granted to the ividual claim of each of the s or respondents herein), then assed in respect of each of such e principles laid down by the in the case of Madan Singh bmissions have been advanced ts writ petitioners but we are not uch arguments in view of the ned Advocate General, Haryana, ll employees would be accorded e light of the judgment of the in the case of Madan Singh e matter, all the appeals are n upon the State of Haryana/its to accord fresh consideration to volved in this batch of cases by in respect of their claim for iod of six months. The judgment e under appeal stands modified ples laid down by the Hon'ble of Madan Singh (supra). Till an pect of claim of each of the s quo as exists today would be out saying that the claim of policy of 2011 will also be eping in view the principles laid eme Court in the case of Madan r impugned in the present batch RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent. CWP-26130 7. in the above 8. objection’ to 9. and with the Writ Petitio 23.04.2026 p a direction fresh consid pass a speak today, while the Hon’ble 10. 18.08.2026 rishu 130-2026 -4- of appeals/writ petitions would consideration of the claim of em 10. In order to facilitate a fre the individual employee, we dir a comprehensive representatio with a copy of this order within the date of receipt of certified c 11. All pending misc. applic disposed of.” It is prayed that the present writ above terms. Learned counsel for the petitio ion’ to the same. Accordingly without commenti ith the consent of learned counsel fo Petition stands disposed of in terms 2026 passed in case of Aas Mohamm ction to the State of Haryana/conce consideration to the claim of petition speaking order thereupon within a while keeping in mind the judgment n’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh Pending application(s) if any als 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable uld not come in the way of fresh of employees for regularization. a fresh consideration of claim of e direct each employee to submit tation to the department along ithin a period of two weeks from ed copy of this order. pplication(s), if any, also stand nt writ petition be also disposed of petitioner submits that he has ‘no menting on the merits of the case nsel for the parties, present Civil terms of the above order dated mmad and others (supra); with /concerned Department to accord petitioners for regularization; and hin a period of 06 months from ment dated 16.04.2026 passed by ingh’s case (Supra). any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.08.19 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgmdent.