IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 Civil Writ Petition No. 2414 of 2019(O&M) Date of Decision: July 09 , 2026. Gulab Singh ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Dalbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, DAG, Haryana. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. CM No.8469-CWP-2026 Instant application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India for placing on record Annexure P16 to P36 with exemption from filing certified copy thereof. In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and Annexures P16 to P36 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.8470-CWP-2026 Instant application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC for listing the writ petition for its actual hearing and decide the same in terms of decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.27349 of 2018 and policy guidelines, 2014 of the Government of Haryana. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that vide order OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.13 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2414 of 2019(O&M) [2] dated 21.11.2023 passed by this Court the present writ petition was ordered to be adjourned sine die to await the decision of this Court in LPA No.688 of 2021 titled as State of Haryana and others v. Balwinder Singh and others and vide order dated 31.07.2024 the matter was ordered to be listed after the decision of SLP(C) No.27349 of 2018 pending before Hon’ble the Supeme Court. Learned counsel further submits that now Hon’ble the Supreme Court has finally adjudicated the controversy vide judgment dated 16.04.2026 (Annexure P17) 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 consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the abovenoted writ petition is taken up on board for final decision for today itself. CM-8471-CWP of 2026 in/and CWP-2414 of 2019 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 for quashing oral communication dated 24.01.2019 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was informed that his services would no longer be required upon joining of newly recruited regular employees, despite the fact that his services had already been regularized vide order dated 09.08.2017 with effect from 01.03.2015; and further issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release all consequential benefits arising out of the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Peon, including pay and allowances, arrears, fixation in the regular pay scale with applicable interest, as the petitioner has continued to be paid only on DC rates notwithstanding his regularization; and further direct the respondents not to terminate or discontinue the services of the OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.13 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2414 of 2019(O&M) [3] petitioner on account of appointment of newly selected candidates. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as Cycle Attendant-cum-Chowkidar on 08.07.2008 against a sanctioned post and, on account of his satisfactory work and conduct, was assigned the duties of a Peon with effect from 03.08.2011. Claiming eligibility under the State Government's regularization policy dated 20.06.2014, the petitioner sought regularization of his services. Learned counsel submits that upon consideration by a duly constituted Committee, his services were regularized on the post of Peon vide order dated 09.08.2017 w.e.f. 01.03.2015. However, despite regularization, he continued to be paid wages at DC rates and was denied consequential service benefits. Learned counsel further submits that although the judgment quashing the regularization policy was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he was orally informed on 24.01.2019 that his services would no longer be required upon the joining of newly recruited Peons. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case his 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 him. 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 OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.13 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.2414 of 2019(O&M) [4] 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 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. 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, if any, shall stand disposed of. ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 09 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.13 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh