1 CWP-15310-2019(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CWP No.15310 of 2019(O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 Rajesh kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Navjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 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 absorb the petitioner on regular basis in view of the Government policy dated 18.06.2014 with a further prayer to regularize the services of the petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that vide order dated 30.05.2019 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 Civil Appeal No.1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others including Yogesh Tyagi case (supra), the present writ petition has thus been listed for hearing by the Registry. OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.15 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CWP-15310-2019(O&M) 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 he has no objection in case direction is issued to respondent No.2 to examine the petitioner’s claim in the light of aforesaid judgment passed in Madan Singh’s case (supra) and submits that 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 OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.15 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CWP-15310-2019(O&M) 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, Department of Skill Development and Industrial Training, Haryana to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and decide claim of the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s case (supra) by passing 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 observe that in case the petitioner is 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 2026.07.15 09:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh