COCP-737 IN THE HI 213 Manoj Kuma Amit Sharma CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. order dated as ‘Manoj K reads as follo 2. directions re the responde 737-2021 -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H COCP-737 Date of Deci j Kumar Versus Sharma M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Binat Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.) Mr. SK Yadav, Advocate for th I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present contempt petition has b dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-1) pass anoj Kuma and another vs. State of as follows:- “Inter alia contends tha from 26.08.2014 (Annexure P 22.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) respectively. On account o (Annexure P-5), their service 07.11.2017 (Annexure P-6). Reference is made to pe 2017 'Virender Kumar Vs. St pending for 12.02.2018 and 16.11.2017 (Annexure P-12) pa Notice of motion for 12.0 In the meantime, the disengaged. To be heard alongwith ab Learned counsel for the petitio ons reproduced above, services of the pondent in the year 2019. ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 737-2021 f Decision: 12.01.2026 .… Petitioner .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA V.C.) for the respondent. has been filed alleging violation of ) passed in CWP-27753-2017 titled ate of Haryana and others’, which that the petitioners are working e P-1) on the post of Peon and 2) on the post of Driver, t of letter dated 06.11.2017 rvices have been terminated on o pendency of CWP No.26146 of s. State of Haryana and others', and the interim order dated ) passed therein. 12.02.2018. the petitioners shall not be th above said case.” petitioner submits that despite the of the petitioner were terminated by n of itled hich ng nd er, 17 on of , ed be the by RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-737 3. writ petition with other co common ord said order re 4. this Court re been passed post availab there was no that the sai petitioner. L of the above present petit 737-2021 -2- Learned counsel for the respo etition bearing No. CWP-27753-2017 ther connected writ petition was dispo on order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure rder reads as under:- “Keeping in view the regularization policy exists as Yogesh Tyagi’s case (supra), set-aside, has not been stayed a present petitions are dispos petitioner(s) that in case after Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ind petitioner(s) to claim the ben services under the Policy conc either to revive the present petit Further, in case, hencefo order causing prejudice to services, the petitioner(s) appropriate remedy before the a In case, respondent-depa work of the post on which pe they will be allowed to con detailed order will be passe reasons for not allowing the service and whether the work decided by the respondents k instructions issued by the respo It is further submitted that on ourt reproduced above, order dated 19 assed and services of the petitioner we vailable against which the petitioner as no workload available with the res he said order (Annexure R-3) has ner. Learned counsel for the responde above no contempt is made out aga t petition may be dismissed. respondent submits that the main 2017 filed by the petitioner along s disposed of by the Writ Court vide exure R-2) and operative part of the the fact that as of now, no s as the judgment of this Court in ra), wherein the Policy has been yed and is operational, hence, the sposed of with liberty to the fter the judgment is passed by the f India, any right accrues to the benefit of regularization of the concerned, they will be at liberty petitions or to file a fresh petition. nceforth the respondents pass any to the petitioner(s) qua their will be at liberty to avail the appropriate forum. department is of the view that the h petitioner(s) are working exists continue in service, otherwise assed by the respondent given the petitioner(s) to continue in work of the post exists, will be ts keeping in view the various espondents in that regard.” on the basis of the directions of 19.04.2024 (Annexure R-3) has ner were terminated as there was no tioner can be regularized and even the respondents. It is also submitted ) has been communicated to the spondent thus, submits that in view ut against the respondents and the ain long vide f the no in en he he he he he rty ny eir ail he sts ise en be us s of has s no ven itted the iew the RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-737 5. aforesaid sub 6. 7. required to b 8. 9. 12.01.2026 rishu 737-2021 -3- Learned counsel for the petition aid submissions of learned counsel for Heard. Thus, in view of the facts note ed to be passed; and the present petitio Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s 6 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable etitioner is unable to controvert the sel for the respondent. noted above, no further direction is petition stands dismissed. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No t the n is RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.13 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.