CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 1 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2026 Joginder Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amish Sharma, A.A.G., Haryana. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement has been rejected; the same being violative of the judgments (Annexures P-6 to P-9) passed by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court; as well as violative of principles of industrial law and against the principles of natural justice and equity; and further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of helper as similar situated employees having common dates of appointment and termination, have already been reinstated on the said post, in the interest of justice and equity. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 2 of 12 2. Brief facts of the case are that vide Memo No. 891 dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-1), petitioner and the following other 7 persons were appointed as Helpers in the Karnal Depot, Haryana Roadways on contract basis initially for 89 days: - Sr. No. Name of Applicant & Father Name 1. Sh. Joginder Singh son of Sh. Jagmal Singh (petitioner herein) 2. Sh. Satbir Singh son of Sh. Anant Ram 3. Sh. Pardeep Singh son of Sh. Randhir Singh 4. Sh. Raj Kumar son of Sh. Maan Singh 5. Sh. Satish Kumar son of Sh. Banarsi Dass 6. Sh. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan 7. Sh. Shish Pal son of Sh. Ram Chander 8. Sh. Satbir Singh son of Sh. Ram Chander Vide subsequent Memos dated 29.05.2000 (Annexure P-2); 24.08.2000 (Annexure P-3); and 24.11.2000 (Annexure P-4), petitioner and the above said seven persons were re-engaged, each time for a further period of 89 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was further re-engaged from 01.03.2001 till 31.05.2001 (Annexure P-5) vide order No. 1052 dated 28.02.2001. Beyond 31.05.2001, no extension was given to the petitioner. As such services of the petitioner stood terminated. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Petitioner’s initial appointment dated 21.02.2000 vide Annexure P-1 was along with 7 other persons. As noted above, vide the subsequent Memos (Annexure P-2 to P-5), alongwith the petitioner, 7 DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 3 of 12 other persons including one Satish Kumar son of Banarsi Dass were re- engaged as Helpers. Thus, appointment and extensions were granted to the petitioner, and the seven other persons vide common orders (Annexure P-1 to P-5). It is submitted that the non-extension after 31.05.2001 was challenged by the said Satish Kumar by way of reference filed before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Vide Award dated 27.02.2006, Industrial Tribunal held the termination of service of Satish Kumar to be illegal and directed him to be reinstated with continuity of service but with 50% back wages from the date of Demand Notice at the last salary drawn. Aggrieved against the aforesaid Award dated 27.02.2006 reinstating Satish Kumar, a CWP-12436-2006 titled as M/s. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal vs. Satish Kumar and others was filed by respondent No.3/General Manager, Haryana Roadways Karnal. Vide order dated 10.08.2006 (Annexure P-6), the said CWP came to be dismissed by this Court; thereby affirming findings of the Industrial Tribunal. Against the same, the respondent No.3 preferred a Civil Appeal No. 2180 of 2011 titled as General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal vs. Satish Kumar before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Civil Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P-7). 4. Ld. Counsel points out that other identically placed employees, namely, Pardeep Kumar and Shish Pal with common dates of appointment and termination as that of the petitioner, also filed CWP- 17555-2011 and CWP-20005-2011 respectively, challenging the Award DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 4 of 12 passed by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court in their respective cases, whereby their claim for reinstatement was rejected. Vide common order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-8), the said CWPs were disposed of by directing reinstatement of the said persons with 50% back wages by placing reliance upon order dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satish Kumar supra. Again, on the basis of order dated 21.05.2014 (P-7), similar benefits were granted to another employee Satbir Singh vide order dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P-9) passed in CWP-6389-2015 titled as The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal vs. Satbir Singh and another. It is submitted that accordingly 5 out of 7 persons initially appointed vide order dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-1) were reinstated by the aforesaid orders of this Court. 5. Learned counsel contends that having been appointed and terminated alongwith the abovesaid same persons vide Annexure P-1 to P-5, petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit of reinstatement. Accordingly, petitioner had previously approached this Court by filing CWP-21355-2018 titled as Joginder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others; which was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure P- 11) “by giving directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in view of the judgments Annexure P-6 to P-8 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order". It is submitted that pursuant to the above said direction of this Court, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 5 of 12 dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P-12) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. 6. Learned counsel argues that the said impugned order is illegal, against the well settled principles of Industrial Law, against the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court and of Hon’ble Apex Court, as also against the principles of natural justice and equity; and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is contended that petitioner is exactly similarly placed as the other 5 persons reinstated by the above said orders. As such, petitioner is entitled to parity with the said persons and claim of the petitioner for reinstatement has been wrongly denied by the respondents. It is contended that the findings returned by learned Industrial Tribunal in the case of Satish Kumar to the effect that said Satish Kumar had worked for more than 240 days, would also apply to the petitioner as undisputedly petitioner was appointed and re-engaged alongwith the said Satish Kumar vide common orders (Annexures P-1 to P-5). It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed, as follows: – “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the Impugned Order Dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P-12) passed by Respondent no.-3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement has been rejected as the same being violative of the judgments (Annexures P-6 to P-9) passed by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court as well as violative of principles of industrial law and against the principles of natural justice and equity; and DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 6 of 12 (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other order for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of helper as similar situated employees having common dates of appointment and termination, have been reinstated, in the interest of justice and equity.” 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that case of the petitioner is on a different footing from that of others mentioned above as, unlike the said other persons, petitioner has not approached the Industrial Tribunal. It is pointed out that the petitioner had first staked his claim for reinstatement after 18 years vide CWP-21355-2018. Thus, claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained at this belated stage. Thus, the impugned order suffers from no error, and the present Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other argument is raised by ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Factual matrix of the case has already been noted hereinabove. It is not disputed that against his non-extension, the petitioner had not approached the Labour Court and had not sought reinstatement. Thus, there is no finding of fact given by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner to the effect that petitioner had worked continuously for 240 days. Contention of the petitioner that findings in this respect returned in favour of Satish Kumar would also apply to the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 7 of 12 petitioner is misconceived; as in this regard logbook of the petitioner and service record of the petitioner would have to be considered. Thus, reliance of the petitioner on the cases of Satish Kumar, et cetera is misplaced being distinguishable. 9. Further, it is also not disputed that the petitioner had agitated his claim for the very first time after a huge gap of 18 years by way of CWP-21355-2018. Such a belated claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained. I am supported in my view by a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2678248, decided on 11.12.2024; wherein it is held that “Delay and laches in filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disentitle a petitioner to relief, especially when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in asserting one's rights.” 10. Furthermore, the above said CWP-21355-2018 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2018 (Annexure P-11) with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, impugned order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P-12) has been passed; thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner as follows: - “I have gone through the judgment Annexure P-6 to P- 8 carefully and found that the petitioner, Sh. Joginder Singh was appointed and worked in Haryana Roadways, Karnal during the same period as Sh. Satish Kumar & Sh. Pardeep Kumar and the references made by the petitioner are similar DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 8 of 12 to their case. However, Sh. Satish Kumar & Sh. Pardeep Kumar had submitted their Claim petition before the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Panipat against termination of their services well in time whereas the petitioner did not submit any Claim Petition/representation before the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Panipat or the department. The petitioner thus woke up after long delay only because of the reason that his counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated other employees who had timely approached the Hon'ble Court and litigated for their right throughout. I find no justification to reinstate Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Jagmal Singh similar to Sh. Satish Kuınar and Sh. Pardeep Kumar as such the claim of Sh. Joginder Singh for reinstatement in service is rejected.” (Emphasis is mine) 11. Clearly therefore, there is a fundamental distinction between the case of the petitioner and that of Satish Kumar and others. Petitioner cannot claim parity with them as the petitioner has slept over his rights for a period of 18 years; which is almost 2 decades. Thus, case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the judgment dated 21.05.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. It may also be pointed out that vide an Affidavit dated 23.04.2025 filed by Kuldeep Singh, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 it has been additionally stated in para 3(i) that initial appointment of the petitioner was made “……by the then General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal without following DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 9 of 12 any proper procedure such as neither any advertisement was made nor any demand was sent to the Employment Exchange, which will be treated as back door entry into the Govt. service without providing proper opportunity to the other eligible persons. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the notification dated 17-07-1998 issued by the Haryana Government, Transport Department, General Manager is the appointing authority for the post of helper technical regular basis by sending the requisition to the Employment Exchange. As per Appendix B of the notification dated 17-07-1998, the Academic qualification for the post of Helper technical for direct recruitment was ITI certificate in the respective trade. But the then General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal while engaging the petitioner and 8 others did not follow the proper procedure such as neither any advertisement was made nor any demand was sent to the Employment Exchange and thus violated the departmental rules made for class IV employees. Hence, it is clear from the above record the petitioner in the present case and 8 other helpers were engaged by the then General Manager by not following the proper procedure and in contravention of the departmental rules. Thereafter no person has been engaged in the depot on contract basis against the accidental vehicles.” 13. From the above, it is clear that initial appointment of the petitioner was made without following proper procedure; and that petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Helper. No replication has been filed by the petitioner refuting the above DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 10 of 12 said averments made by the respondents. As such too, petitioner cannot be reinstated. 14. Even otherwise, in respect of blindly claiming parity with allegedly similar cases, and in respect of delayed claims, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 627984, has held as under: - “A. Constitution of India, Article 14 - Equality - Extending the benefit of judgments to similar situated persons (fence sitters) - Normal rule is that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently - This rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence - Same would be valid ground to dismiss claim - Exception is inapplicable in cases where judgment pronounced by Court is judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. B. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and 226 - Appointment - Cancellation of appointment - Challenged - Delay and latches - Acquiescence - Cancellation challenged after nine years when some of similarly situated aggrieved persons got relief from Court - Unexplained delay and latches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years - Totally unjust to give appointment after a period of 27 years - Order of High Court allowing claim of appellant set aside.” The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:- “23. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: (1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 11 of 12 benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. (2) However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-2856-2019 (O&M) 12 of 12 intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 15. Keeping in view the above noted factual and legal position, present Civil Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 16. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 07.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.08 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document