212 (9 cases) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 19.09.2025 CWP-8101-2019 (O&M) MAHESH KUMAR .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-10534-2019 (O&M) VED PARKASH .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-19057-2019 (O&M) SUSHIL KUMAR .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-10601-2019 (O&M) RAJ KUMAR .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-8101-2019 (O&M) and connected cases 2 CWP-15937-2019 (O&M) PARHLAD .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-15810-2019 (O&M) PRADEEP AND ORS. .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-15957-2019 (O&M) SANDEEP .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-16019-2019 (O&M) MANISH .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) CWP-14947-2019 (O&M) AMARJEET AND ORS. .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-8101-2019 (O&M) and connected cases 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) Vide this Common order this Court shall dispose of the above said nine writ petitions as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from CWP- 8101-2019. This petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned notice dated 12.03.2019 whereby the respondent are threatening to proceed against the petitioner and illegally terminate the service of the petitioner in violation of fundamental right of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State informs the Court that the State is not inclined to dispense with the services of the petitioners considering the length of the service rendered by them, though this decision of State is a one time measure and also in consonance with the judgement dated 06.08.2012 passed by this Court in CWP-13384-2011 titled as ‘Garima Jindal vs. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and anr., judgment dated 09.11.2012 passed by this Court in LPA- 1775-2012 titled as ‘Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and anr. vs. Garima Jindal’ and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.(s). 1493/2013 titled as ‘Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-8101-2019 (O&M) and connected cases 4 Nigam Ltd. vs. Garima Jindal and anr.’ In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the State as well as the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Garima Jindal’s case (supra), the petitions are hereby allowed and the impugned show cause notice (s) are hereby set aside. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s). (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 19.09.2025 JUDGE anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:30 I agree to specified portions of this document