IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 209 Vinod Kumar State of Haryana and CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) 1. 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P arbitrary and contrary to law. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Pump Attendant/Chowkidar/Mali post the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.3 vide engagement letter dated 07.07.2006 (Annexure P of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in ter policies framed by the Government of Haryana for regularization of CWP-15176-2021 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15176 of 2021 Date of decision : Vinod Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Harkirat Singh Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.4, being il arbitrary and contrary to law. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Pump Attendant/Chowkidar/Mali-cum-Chowkidar (Class post the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.3 vide engagement letter dated 07.07.2006 (Annexure P-1). Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in ter policies framed by the Government of Haryana for regularization of 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 15176 of 2021 (O & M) Date of decision :-27.07.2026 …..Petitioner …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Harkirat Singh Ghuman, Advocate Mr. Harish Kumar Nain, DAG, Haryana. Prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned speaking order dated 4) passed by respondent No.4, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to work on the post of Pump Chowkidar (Class-IV), against which post the petitioner was engaged by respondent No.3 vide engagement 1). Further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in terms of the regularization policies framed by the Government of Haryana for regularization of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document casual/daily wage workers, as applicable from time to time, including the policies annexed as Annexures P consequential benefits. 2. petitioner that Worker by the respondent (Annexure P service of almost 10 years. A approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.6259 of 2015 (Annexure P Haryana and others”, seeking regularization as the petitioner had in almost 09 years of continuous service with the respondents. However, upon filing of petitioner were writ petition came to be disposed of vide order d (Annexure P of the petitioners (Annexure P preferably within a period of three months. impugned order dated 07.04.2016 on the ground that there is no policy for regularization of the person such as the petitioner, framed by the Government of Haryana. of Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Anne be considered for regularization as should have worked for not less than three years as on 28.5.2014 and CWP-15176-2021 (O & M) casual/daily wage workers, as applicable from time to time, including the policies annexed as Annexures P- consequential benefits. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was firstly engaged Worker by the respondent-Department vide order dated (Annexure P-1). Petitioner had rendered continuous satisfactory ce of almost 10 years. Accordingly the petitioner had first approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.6259 of 2015 (Annexure P-3) titled as “Jagdev Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, seeking regularization as the petitioner had in almost 09 years of continuous service with the respondents. However, upon filing of the aforesaid writ petition, services of the petitioner were verbally dispensed with by the respondents writ petition came to be disposed of vide order d (Annexure P-3) directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-7 therein) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. impugned order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P on the ground that there is no policy for regularization of the person such as the petitioner, framed by the Government of Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P be considered for regularization as per should have worked for not less than three years as on 28.5.2014 and 2 casual/daily wage workers, as applicable from time to time, including -5 and P-6, along with all submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner was firstly engaged as Daily Wage Casual vide order dated 07.07.2006 Petitioner had rendered continuous satisfactory ccordingly the petitioner had first approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.6259 of 2015 3) titled as “Jagdev Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, seeking regularization as the petitioner had put in almost 09 years of continuous service with the respondents. the aforesaid writ petition, services of the dispensed with by the respondents. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2015 3) directing the respondents to decide the representation 7 therein) as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Pursuant thereto, the (Annexure P-4) came to be passed on the ground that there is no policy for regularization of the person such as the petitioner, framed by the Government of Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms xure P-6) the petitioner is liable to per the said Policy petitiioner should have worked for not less than three years as on 28.5.2014 and VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document is still in service. It is further submitted that the said Policy has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in titled as “ of CWP No.17206 of 2014 State of Haryana and others present writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the said Policy. 3. was earlier a No.31556 of 2018 others” arising out of and another vs. State of Haryana and others 4. 1996 of 2024 Haryana” and 18.06.2014 (Annexure P accordingly pra 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 CWP-15176-2021 (O & M) is still in service. It is further submitted that the said Policy has been d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in titled as “State of Haryana vs. Yogesh Tyagi and others CWP No.17206 of 2014 titled as “Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others”. It is accordingly present writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the said Policy. 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 It is pointed out that subsequently, 1996 of 2024 titled as “Madan Singh and others vs. State of ”, decided on 16.04.2026; the policies dated 16. 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 vs. State of 3 is still in service. It is further submitted that the said Policy has been d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.31556 of 2018 State of Haryana vs. Yogesh Tyagi and others” arising out Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. It is accordingly prayed that the present writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the It is noticed that the issue involved in the present petition waiting 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”. that subsequently, in Civil Appeal No. Madan Singh and others vs. State of 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 VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Haryana and others, 23.04.2026, relevant CWP-15176-2021 (O & M) 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 regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view 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 prin 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 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 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 4 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 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, dered 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 ent 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 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 tion 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 m 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 e Supreme Court in the case of Madan VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.31 15.13 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 (supra); Haryana/concerned 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-15176-2021 (O & M) 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 consi 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 stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 5 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 period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified 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 y, 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 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 2026.07.31 15.13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document