[271] The State o Kurukshetr Joginder Si Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] present cas effect from [2] not in disp that he wa regularizati plaintiff. completion vacancy. I on which th was no regularized IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR RSA-4813 Date of De State of Haryana through Collector, kshetra and others versus der Singh HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Paramjeet Singh, DAG, H **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The only issue that arises for nt case is ‘whether the plaintiff is en rom 23.02.1995 instead of 01.06.199 The claim of the plaintiff for r n dispute. The entitlement of the pla he was awarded several punishmen larization, no disciplinary proceedi tiff. As per the policy, plaintiff w letion of 02 years of service on c ncy. It is not the case of the appellant hich the plaintiff completed two year no vacancy in the department on larized. OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 4813-2019 (O&M) of Decision : 20.11.2025 …Appellants ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN G, Haryana. for consideration of this Court in th is entitled to seek regularization wi .1995.’ ff for regularization w.e.f. 01.06.1995 the plaintiff was only declined, holdin shments. Admittedly, on the date o oceedings were pending against th tiff was entitled to be regularized o on contractual basis against regul pellants that on 23.02.1995, i.e. the da o years of his contractual service, the nt on which the plaintiff could rt in the n with .1995 is holding date of inst the ized on regular the date e, there not RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.28 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4813-2019 (O&M) -2- [3] So far as reliance of the appellants on various punishments awarded to the plaintiff to deny his claim of regularization is concerned, the same is misplaced as it is not the case of the appellants that he is not entitled for regularization. Rather the plaintiff was regularized in service w.e.f. 01.06.1995. [4] In view of the above, this Court finds that once in terms of instructions (Exhibit P-9), the plaintiff was entitled to be regularized on 23.02.1995 and there was a vacancy, there is no reason as to why the plaintiff should be declined the benefit. [5] There being no reason to decline benefit of regularization to the plaintiff from 23.02.1995 to 01.06.1995, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below. Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. [4] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 20.11.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.11.28 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document