127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT AMRIT LAL AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. S. S. Shekhawat, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellants * SANJEEV PRAKASH 1. This LPA has been preferred challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP whereby the learned Single Bench has rejected the claim of the appellants seeking regularization on the post where the initially appointed against the sanctioned post in the year 2010. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had continuously worked w.e.f. 06.04.2010 and Petition in the year 2014 regularization on the post of Peon (Group of their salary that had not been paid. The Court disposed of the Petition vide order dated 23.0 speaking order on the representation made by the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner the appellants and observed that the appellants ha IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: AMRIT LAL AND OTHERS V HARYANA AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. S. S. Shekhawat, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellants. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) This LPA has been preferred challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP whereby the learned Single Bench has rejected the claim of the appellants seeking regularization on the post where the initially appointed against the sanctioned post in the year 2010. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants continuously worked w.e.f. 06.04.2010 and in the year 2014 bearing No. CWP regularization on the post of Peon (Group-D) and further to make of their salary that had not been paid. The Court disposed of the Petition vide order dated 23.07.2014 directing the respondent speaking order on the representation made by the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, vide order dated 26.09.2014 the appellants and observed that the appellants ha IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-634-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4th of March, 2025 ..…...Appellant (s) V/s. .....Respondent(s) SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. S. S. Shekhawat, Advocate and This LPA has been preferred challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Bench in CWP-2673-2025 whereby the learned Single Bench has rejected the claim of the appellants seeking regularization on the post where the appellants’ claimed to have initially appointed against the sanctioned post in the year 2010. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants continuously worked w.e.f. 06.04.2010 and they preferred a Writ bearing No. CWP-14290-2014 seeking their D) and further to make payment of their salary that had not been paid. The Court disposed of the said Writ .2014 directing the respondent-State to pass a speaking order on the representation made by the appellants. The Deputy vide order dated 26.09.2014, declined the claim of the appellants and observed that the appellants had been discharged in the Suresh Kumar 2025.03.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-634-2025 year 2011. L continuously working and there from their services. In fact, reflect that the appellants were actually perform 3. L regularized as their names ha Exchange and were was also required to be before the learned been passed. 4. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Bench has fallen in error in making observations of not entertaining after a lapse o regularized also 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant have been placed on record as well as the learned Single Bench. 6. From the facts which have culled out from above, it is apparent that while the respondents discharged in 2011, th they submit that the order denying illegal. 2025 (O&M) 2011. Learned counsel submits that the a continuously working and there was no order passed from their services. In fact, certain documents ha reflect that the appellants were actually perform Learned counsel submits that the appellants regularized as their names had been sent through the Employment Exchange and were also entitled to be continued in service and the salary was also required to be paid to them. The Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge wherein the present impugned order has Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Bench has fallen in error in making observations of not entertaining after a lapse of 14 years and the appellants deserve to be reinstated and also. Their salary is also required to be paid. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant at length and also perused the document have been placed on record as well as the impugned learned Single Bench. From the facts which have culled out from above, it is apparent that while the respondents state that services of the appellants discharged in 2011, the appellants’ claim to have continued till 2014 and they submit that the order denying their regularization is wrongful and sel submits that the appellants had been was no order passed to discharge them certain documents had been placed on record to reflect that the appellants were actually performing their duties. the appellants were entitled to be sent through the Employment continued in service and the salary The Writ Petition was therefore, filed Single Judge wherein the present impugned order has Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Bench has fallen in error in making observations of not entertaining the Writ Petition f 14 years and the appellants deserve to be reinstated and salary is also required to be paid. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned and also perused the documents which impugned order passed by the From the facts which have culled out from above, it is apparent services of the appellants were appellants’ claim to have continued till 2014 and regularization is wrongful and Suresh Kumar 2025.03.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-634-2025 7. We find that the appellants had again preferred a Writ Petition bearing No. CWP following order as the policy of 18.06.2014 has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP 17206 Haryana and Others’ petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioners to agitate their claim qua the regularization of their services under the Pol dated 01.10.2003 by availing appropriate remedy. 8. The appellants filed certain CM 14.05.2024, the following order was passed: main Writ Pe applications may kindly pressed any further.” 9. The order passed in the year 2014 as well as in 2024 reflects that the appellants have worked for a short period 31.03.2011 and two of them from 06.04.2010 to 20.05.2011 i.e. one year and fourteen days and t have no case for seeking regularization based on the period of work which they have performed. So f 2014 is concerned, the Writ Court could not have given a finding as to or up to what date they have actually performed their duties. Admittedly, when 2025 (O&M) We find that the appellants had again preferred a Writ Petition bearing No. CWP-3951-2015 which came up for hearing on 2 following order was passed :- “1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the policy of 18.06.2014 has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP 17206-2014 titled as ‘Yogesh Tyagi and Haryana and Others’ decided on 31.05.2018, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioners to agitate their claim qua the regularization of their services under the Pol dated 01.10.2003 by availing appropriate remedy. 2. Ordered accordingly.” The appellants filed certain CMs 14.05.2024, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the main Writ Petition has already been decided, the present applications may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further.” The order passed in the year 2014 as well as in 2024 reflects that the appellants have worked for a short period 31.03.2011 and two of them from 06.04.2010 to 20.05.2011 i.e. one year fourteen days and they were appointed on contract basis. Thus, they have no case for seeking regularization based on the period of work which they have performed. So far as their claim to have worked upto the year 2014 is concerned, the Writ Court could not have given a finding as to or up to what date they have actually performed their duties. Admittedly, when We find that the appellants had again preferred a Writ Petition 2015 which came up for hearing on 22.04.2024 and Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the policy of 18.06.2014 has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP- Yogesh Tyagi and another Vs. State of decided on 31.05.2018, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the petitioners to agitate their claim qua the regularization of their services under the Policy dated 01.10.2003 by availing appropriate remedy. Ordered accordingly.” s before the Court and again on counsel for the applicants submits that as the tition has already been decided, the present e disposed of having been not The order passed in the year 2014 as well as in 2024 reflects that the appellants have worked for a short period i.e. from 06.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 and two of them from 06.04.2010 to 20.05.2011 i.e. one year ere appointed on contract basis. Thus, they have no case for seeking regularization based on the period of work which ar as their claim to have worked upto the year 2014 is concerned, the Writ Court could not have given a finding as to or up to what date they have actually performed their duties. Admittedly, when Suresh Kumar 2025.03.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-634-2025 the order was passed by this Court directing the respondent case of the appellants for regularization, the appellants were not performing their duties. Persons regularization unless the termination/oral discharge or oral termination is set aside. For th has been noticed by the learned Single Bench was to raise the dispute before the appropriate Labour Court/Industrial Court as the case may be. However, the appellants have not chosen to set up a cl at that relevant time, in view of short period of work done by the appellants, we do not find it a case where a direction can be issued for regularization. 10. The learned Single Bench has rightly noticed that 14 years have elapsed from their services stood already dispensed with. 11. In view thereto, dismissing the Writ Petition Appeal is accordin 12. Al accordingly. March 4, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2025 (O&M) the order was passed by this Court directing the respondent case of the appellants for regularization, the appellants were not performing their duties. Persons, who are not engaged in service, cannot seek regularization unless the termination/oral discharge or oral termination is set aside. For the said purpose, the remedy available to the appellants, as has been noticed by the learned Single Bench was to raise the dispute before the appropriate Labour Court/Industrial Court as the case may be. However, the appellants have not chosen to set up a cl at that relevant time, in view of short period of work done by the appellants, we do not find it a case where a direction can be issued for regularization. The learned Single Bench has rightly noticed that 14 years have elapsed from the time when the appellants their services stood already dispensed with. In view thereto, direction of the learned Single Bench in dismissing the Writ Petition in limine cannot be said to be unjustified. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : the order was passed by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellants for regularization, the appellants were not performing who are not engaged in service, cannot seek regularization unless the termination/oral discharge or oral termination is e said purpose, the remedy available to the appellants, as has been noticed by the learned Single Bench was to raise the dispute before the appropriate Labour Court/Industrial Court as the case may be. However, the appellants have not chosen to set up a claim for reinstatement at that relevant time, in view of short period of work done by the appellants, we do not find it a case where a direction can be issued for regularization. The learned Single Bench has rightly noticed that 14 years appellants were initially appointed and direction of the learned Single Bench in cannot be said to be unjustified. The pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE [MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE : Yes / No : Yes / No Suresh Kumar 2025.03.17 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document