CWP-23010-2019 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.204 CWP-23010-2019 (O&M) Decided on : 13.08.2026 Joginder Pal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR *** Present : Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate with Mr. K.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:- “Civil writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ/order or directions especially in the nature of Certiorary for quashing of the order dated 04.07.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 being wrong, illegal and non-speaking. Further to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1997 when the juniors of the petitioners were granted the benefit of regularization with consequential direction to the respondents to release all the arrears and other service benefits alongwith interest @ 18% per annum upto date.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined the respondent-Corporation as Watchman on 01.10.1985 and thereafter his services were retrenched on 19.06.1988 which compelled the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court which was MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.08.14 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh CWP-23010-2019 (O&M) 2 answered in favour of the petitioner and he was reinstated in service with continuity of service on 17.07.2000. Various persons junior to the petitioner have been regularized and the claim for regularization of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the respondent(s). In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo versus Union of India and others 2024 SCC online SC 3826; Shripal and another versus Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh and others versus State of UP and another 2025 INSC 998 and the judgment of this Court in CWP No.2494 of 2018, titled as Harjeet Singh and others versus Union of India and others, decided on 29.04.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that earlier the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected vide order dated 04.07.2014 and the Corporation shall not be averse to reconsider his claim for regularization. 4. In this view of the matter, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the applicable policy and law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. 13.08.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) mamta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MAMTA MALHOTRA 2026.08.14 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh