CWP-22262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 Saraswati Devi and others State of Haryana and 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 their service as Group consequential benefits in the li in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC online SC in the light of the judgment of this Court in Haryana, in CA-8558 2. the petitioner Department on different dates 62-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Saraswati Devi and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Anil Bidhan, Advocate for Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. 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 service as Group-D employees in the Forest Department with all consequential benefits in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC online SC in the light of the judgment of this Court in 2025(3) PLR 436 and as per judgment of Hon’ble Apex court 8558-2018 titled as Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. Learned counsel for the petitioners petitioners herein have joined the services in the respondent Department on different dates from 1998 to 200 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22262-2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Anil Bidhan, Advocate for Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. etition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a directing the respondents to regularize D employees in the Forest Department with all of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC online SC 3826 and in the light of the judgment of this Court in Joginder Singh vs. State of judgment of Hon’ble Apex court Dharam Singh and others vs. State of U.P. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that s herein have joined the services in the respondent- 1998 to 2008 as detailed in para of the for issuance of a e D employees in the Forest Department with all of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Joginder Singh vs. State of judgment of Hon’ble Apex court contends that as detailed in para RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22262 Nos. 3 to 6 continuously their services have have sent legal notice dated (Annexure P action has been 3. petitioners direction is issued to respondent dated 27.01.2025 and reminder dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P respectively) Hon’ble Apex Court in 4. 5. on behalf of respondent case the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner accepted. It is also submitted by learned State counsel that the service tenure of each of the petitioners’ needs to be ascertained as to whether they have rendered make them eligible for regularization. 6. parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands the State of Haryana/concern consideration to the claim of petitioner 62-2026 -2- to 6 of the writ petition as Daily Wagers continuously working as such in the respondent their services have not been regularized. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners sent legal notice dated 27.01.2025 and (Annexure P-6 and P-7, respectively) for regularizing their services but no been taken thereupon. After arguing for some time, petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied direction is issued to respondents to consider and dated 27.01.2025 and reminder dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P respectively) in a time bound manner in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaggo’s case (supra). Notice of motion. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl. A.G., on behalf of respondent-State and submits that case the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner It is also submitted by learned State counsel that the service tenure of each of the petitioners’ needs to be ascertained as to whether they have rendered 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service to make them eligible for regularization. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of the State of Haryana/concerned Department to accord fresh consideration to the claim of petitioners for regularization; and pass a petition as Daily Wagers and since then they are the respondent-Department, but till date Pursuant thereto, the petitioners and reminder dated 30.07.2025 7, respectively) for regularizing their services but no fter arguing for some time, learned counsel for the would be satisfied at this stage if a to consider and decide the legal notice dated 27.01.2025 and reminder dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-6 and P-7, in view of law laid down by the ’s case (supra). , Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice State and submits that she has ‘no objection’ in case the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage, is It is also submitted by learned State counsel that the service tenure of each of the petitioners’ needs to be ascertained as to whether 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service to Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the disposed of with a direction to ed Department to accord fresh for regularization; and pass a Department, but till date Pursuant thereto, the petitioners 5 7, respectively) for regularizing their services but no learned counsel for the a legal notice 7, the accepts notice in at this stage, is It is also submitted by learned State counsel that the service tenure of each of the petitioners’ needs to be ascertained as to whether 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service to RISHU KATARIA 2026.07.27 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-22262 speaking order thereupon within a period of while keeping in mind the judgment Court in Jaggo’s case 7. 22.07.2026 rishu 62-2026 -3- speaking order thereupon within a period of while keeping in mind the judgment passed Jaggo’s case (supra).. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable speaking order thereupon within a period of 06 months from today, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme 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.