Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 Civil Writ Petition No. 8517 of 2018(O&M) Date of Decision: July 07 , 2026. Seema ...... PETITIONER (s) Versus State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CM No.8691-CWP-2026 Instant application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for placing on record judgment dated 16.04.2026 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and letter dated 23.02.2024 as Annexures A2 and A3, respectively with exemption from filing certified copy thereof. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures A2 and A3 are ordered to be taken on record subject to just exceptions. Filing of certified copy thereof is exempted. Registry is directed to place the same at an appropriate place.
CM No.8690-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 OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP No.8517 of 2018(O&M) [2] dated 05.04.2018 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 of both the parties, the abovenoted writ petition is taken up on board for final decision for today itself.
CWP-8517 of 2018
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 regularize the services of the petitioner in view of policy dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P3) alongwith all consequential benefits at par with the other similar situated employees.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Library Attendant on contract basis for six month w.e.f. 23.02.2010 following issuance of advertisement and through a proper selection process. The petitioner was relieved from the post on completion of six months’ service, however, she was later on permitted to join on the said post on 07.09.2010 in compliance of order passed by this Court in CWP No.7428 of
2010. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner possesses the prescribed qualifications for the aforesaid post and she was performing her duties to the satisfaction of the superiors since the date of her appointment and OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP No.8517 of 2018(O&M) [3] there was no complaint, whatsoever, with regard to her work and conduct.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case her case is considered and decided by the 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 General, Higher Education 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 OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CWP No.8517 of 2018(O&M) [4] her 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. 7.
Needless to say, if case of the petitioner is considered favourably, she 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 07 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh