1 CWP-22128-2017(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CWP No.22128 of 2017(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Mohan Lal and others ....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Nitin Rathee, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. CM-10617-CWP of 2026 The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for revival up the present petition and for deciding the same in terms of judgment dated 16.04.2026 rendered in Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioners submits that vide order dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court the present writ petition 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 decided a bunch of connected cases, lead case being Madan Singh’s case (supra) including Yogesh Tyagi case (supra) and, thus, prays for revival of the present writ petition. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-22128-2017(O&M) In view of the above, the application is allowed and with the consent of both the parties, all writ petition is taken up together on board for final decision for today itself. CWP-22128-2017 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 certiorari and mandamus, directing respondent No.3 not to relieve the petitioners till regularly appointed Lab Attendants join in their places. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the petitioners are working as Lab Attendants in Government Post Graduate College, Ambala Cantt since 2012 and their appointments were made through a transparent selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 18.06.2012 (Annexure P2). The petitioners possess prescribed qualifications for the aforesaid posts and they are continuously performing their duties since 2012 to the satisfaction of their superiors and there was no complaint, whatsoever, with regard to their work and conduct. The duties performed by the petitioners are perennial in nature which are essential for the functioning of the department. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has limited his prayer to the extent that the present writ petition be treated as a comprehensive representation and the same be ordered to be considered and decided by the respondent in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) as well as Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC 1034. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-22128-2017(O&M) 4. Learned State counsel submits that case of the petitioners would be examined in the light of aforesaid judgment passed in Madan Singh’s case (supra) as well as Jaggo’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 petitioners. 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 limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 – Director General-cum-Commissioner, Higher Education, Haryana to treat the OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-22128-2017(O&M) present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and decide claim of the petitioners in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and Jaggo’s case (supra) by passing a speaking order after affording them 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 petitioners. 7. Needless to observe that in case the petitioners are found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 14.07.2026 JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.16 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document