IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 Civil Writ Petition No. 880 of 2015(O&M) Date of Decision: July 08 , 2026. Rakesh Kumar ...... PETITIONER (s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Ridhi Mittal, Advocate for Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. CM No.10402-CWP-2026 Instant application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for revival of the writ petition and to decide the same. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that vide order dated 11.02.2019 passed by this Court the present writ petition alongwith the other connected matters was ordered to be adjourned sine die to await the decision in SLP against the Division Bench judgment in CWP No.17206 of 2014 (Yogesh Tyagi and another v. State of Haryana and others) and now Hon’ble the Supreme Court has finally adjudicated the controversy vide judgment dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure A1) rendered in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others arising directly out of Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra). In view of the above, the application is allowed and with the consent OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.880 of 2015(O&M) [2] of both the parties, the abovenoted writ petition is taken up on board for final decision for today itself. CWP-880 of 2015 1. Prayer in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner on regular basis in view of policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P12) as he possesses the prescribed qualifications. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Office Secretaryship Stenography (English) Instructor on contract basis for a period of six months vide appointment letter dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) and joined as such at Vocational Education Institute, Morni Hills. The said appointment was made after undergoing a transparent selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.09.2006 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was relieved from the post, however, he was later on permitted to join on the post of Stenography (English) Instructor at Govt. ITI, Panchkula vide letter dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure P9) in compliance of order dated 09.08.2011 passed by this Court in CWP No.12999 of 2011. Learned further submits that the services of similarly situated employees have already been regularized by the Government of Haryana as per the policy dated 18.06.2014. The petitioner possesses the prescribed qualifications for the aforesaid post and he was performing his duties to the satisfaction of the superiors since the date of his appointment and there was no complaint, whatsoever, with regard to his work and conduct. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case his case is considered and decided by the OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.880 of 2015(O&M) [3] respondents in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra), by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to them. 4. Learned State counsel submits that case of the petitioner would be examined in the light of aforesaid judgment passed in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and appropriate order would be passed by the respondents in a time bound manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided a bunch of cases on 16.04.2026 and Madan Singh’s case (supra) is the lead case, wherein regularization policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -- “25. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 31.05.2018 stands partly modified as under: (a) It is held that Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 are valid and the judgment of the High Court to the extent it holds otherwise is set aside. The intervenors who are similarly situated and entitled to the benefit of the Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014 shall be entitled to the reliefs flowing from such declaration, subject to verification by the competent authority. xxx xxx xxx (c) The employees, who had approached the High Court and who were granted liberty to take steps after the present batch of appeals were decided, are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with this judgment.” 6. In view of the above, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2- Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and pass a speaking order after affording him an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken shall be conveyed to the petitioner. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.880 of 2015(O&M) [4] 7. Needless to say, if case of the petitioner is considered favourably, he will be entitled to the same relief as has been extended to the petitioners in Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra). 8. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 08 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh