CWP-22230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 Rama and another State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner writ in the nature of representation dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P 27.04.2026 and 30.04.2026 consider the cla light of the policy decision dated of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 1996 of 2024 decided on 16.04.2026 benefits along with 2. petitioners appointed as DPLs and 01.09.2002 respectively on daily wage basis against vacant regular nature 22230-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Rama and another Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. RS Malik, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition under Article Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to representation dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P 27.04.2026 and 30.04.2026 (Annexures P- consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization light of the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 1996 of 2024 titled as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026 (Annexure P-7) and grant along with interest @ 12% per annum It is inter alia submitted by learned that both the petitioners, namely, Rama and Anita were appointed as DPLs in the respondent-Department vide orders dated 01.09.2002 respectively on daily wage basis against vacant regular nature post as per Deputy Commissioner rate revise IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22230-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. etition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a directing the respondents to decide representation dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P-4) and Legal Notices dated -5 and P-6, respectively) and to regularization of their services in 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3) and in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, 7) and grant all consequential interest @ 12% per annum. submitted by learned counsel for the both the petitioners, namely, Rama and Anita were Department vide orders dated 2001 01.09.2002 respectively on daily wage basis against sanctioned and post as per Deputy Commissioner rate revised of the for issuance of a decide es dated and to in and in terms Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, ial RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22230 from time to time at Hisar. Calender Year without were terminated aforesaid termination before the concerned. In pursuance of separate Awards dated (Annexure P concerned same post with continuity issuance of demand notice dated benefits. 3. dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regulari the petitioner respectively on dai aforesaid Policy also moved representation dated notices dated respectively regularization (Annexure 17206-2014 and others quashed by this Court 22230-2026 -2- from time to time at Hisar. The petitioners had completed 240 days each Calender Year without any break. However, services of the petitioners were terminated w.e.f. 09.08.2016. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid termination before the Industrial concerned. In pursuance of separate Awards dated (Annexure P-1 and P-1/A) passed by the concerned respondents were directed to re same post with continuity in service, full back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice dated 02.05.2016 and all other In the meantime, the respondent State had issue dated 18.06.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service upto 28.05.2014, are entitled for regularization. It is submitted that as petitioners have joined vide orders dated 2001 and 01.09.2002 respectively on daily wage basis and are entitled to Policy dated 18.06.2014. In this regard, the petitioner moved representation dated 27.11.2019 (Annexure P notices dated 27.04.2026 and 30.04.2026 respectively) before the respondents to consider regularization. However, in the meantime, the (Annexure P-3) was challenged before this Court by way of 2014 titled as Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of and others. Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Polic quashed by this Court inter alia on the ground that said The petitioners had completed 240 days each However, services of the petitioners 09.08.2016. The petitioners have challenged the Industrial-cum-Labour Court, concerned. In pursuance of separate Awards dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Industrial-cum-Labour Court respondents were directed to re-instate the petitioners on the in service, full back wages from the date of 02.05.2016 and all other consequential In the meantime, the respondent State had issued the Policy whereby it was decided that all Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employees who have completed 3 years of service zation. It is submitted that as vide orders dated 2001 and 01.09.2002 entitled to regularization as per . In this regard, the petitioners have 27.11.2019 (Annexure P-4), Legal 04.2026 (Annexures P-5 and P-6, respondents to consider his case for . However, in the meantime, the Policy dated 18.06.2014 challenged before this Court by way of CWP- Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana . Vide judgment dated 31.05.2018, the above said Policy was on the ground that said Policy violated RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22230 the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (200 4. the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide as Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the p policy decision dated 18. consequential benefits. 5. for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in 2025 titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: 22230-2026 -3- the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on 16.04.2026; whereby the aforesaid Policy dated upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization in light of the policy decision dated 18.06.2014 and petitioner be granted all consequential benefits. Learned State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant paras of which, read as under: - “5. Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action avail the dictum of the Constitutional Bench judgment passed in Secretary, 6) 4 SCC 1. It is pointed out that subsequently, the matter went before Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024 titled Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, decided on Policy dated 18.06.2014 has been upheld; and the permissible course of action available for the State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. It is accordingly prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to for regularization in light of the 6.2014 and petitioner be granted all State counsel points out that the said issue came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1810- titled as Aas Mohammad and others vs. State of Haryana and which was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.04.2026, relevant Today, when the matter is taken up, we are informed Court has finally decided the issue raised in the case of Yogesh Tyagi (supra) while considering a bunch of connected cases, vide judgment rendered in Madan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 1996 of 2024, decided on 16.04.2026. e judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately deals with the policy for regularization framed by the State of Haryana and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi (supra), the permissible course of action available for the RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22230 22230-2026 -4- State to regularize services of the employees has been elaborately specified. 7. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the employee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 8. Although various submissions on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). 9. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fre the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch State to regularize services of the employees has been Learned Advocate General, Haryana, makes a statement before the Court that if a liberty is granted to the State to examine the individual claim of each of the loyee (either appellants or respondents herein), then separate orders would be passed in respect of each of such claim keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Although various submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respondents writ petitioners but we are not inclined to delve upon such arguments in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate General, Haryana, as per which, the claim of all employees would be accorded consideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh In that view of the matter, all the appeals are disposed of with a direction upon the State of Haryana/its Bodies/Corporation/Nigam to accord fresh consideration to the claim of employees involved in this batch of cases by passing a speaking order in respect of their claim for regularization within a period of six months. The judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal stands modified light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra). Till an appropriate order in respect of claim of each of the employees is passed, status quo as exists today would be maintained. It goes without saying that the claim of regularization based on policy of 2011 will also be accorded consideration keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra) and the order impugned in the present batch RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22230 6. in the above terms. 7. objection’ to the same. 8. parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking o 06 months 16.04.2026 case (Supra) 9. 22.07.2026 rishu 22230-2026 -5- of appeals/writ petitions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. 10. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” It is prayed that the present writ petition in the above terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to the same. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of others (supra); with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner regularization; and pass a speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, while keeping in mind the judgment 16.04.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (Supra). Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable titions would not come in the way of fresh consideration of the claim of employees for regularization. In order to facilitate a fresh consideration of claim of the individual employee, we direct each employee to submit a comprehensive representation to the department along with a copy of this order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand It is prayed that the present writ petition be also disposed of counsel for the petitioner submits that he has ‘no Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order dated 23.04.2026 passed in case of Aas Mohammad and with a direction to the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioner for rder thereupon within a period of from today, while keeping in mind the judgment dated passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh’s Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.