LPA-958-2025 (O&M) 116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT TEJ PAL AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, 1. Present appeal is an offshoot of the cases relating to regularization under the 2003 policy. 2. In the bunch of No.105 of 2025 titled as ‘State of Haryana and other vs. Damyanti, decided on 14.05.2025 aspects, one is with regard to grant of the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the writ with regard to giving them the b Policy dated 01.10.2003 without considering whether they have worked for 240 days in each of the three years preceding the date of Policy. passed an order in 26.09.2024 titled as “State of Haryana and others vs. Sher Singh” entitled for the benefit as claimed by them noticed above. regard to the same set of cas (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH TEJ PAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Present appeal is an offshoot of the cases relating to regularization under the 2003 policy. bunch of appeals preferred by the State No.105 of 2025 titled as ‘State of Haryana and other vs. Damyanti, decided on 14.05.2025, we have passed the following order: “1. All these matters relate to the issue on two aspects, one is with regard to grant of the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to the writ-petitioners and the other is with regard to giving them the b Policy dated 01.10.2003 without considering whether they have worked for 240 days in each of the three years preceding the date of Policy. 2.Relying on the law, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order in LPA No.2356 of 2024 26.09.2024 titled as “State of Haryana and others vs. Sher Singh” holding the concerned writ entitled for the benefit as claimed by them noticed above. 3.However, we have taken note of the fact that with regard to the same set of cases, certain SLPs were IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-958-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G., Haryana. J.(Oral) Present appeal is an offshoot of the cases relating to claim of appeals preferred by the State with lead case of LPA No.105 of 2025 titled as ‘State of Haryana and other vs. Damyanti, , we have passed the following order: All these matters relate to the issue on two aspects, one is with regard to grant of the benefit of Old petitioners and the other is with regard to giving them the benefit of regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003 without considering whether they have worked for 240 days in each of the three years 2.Relying on the law, a Division Bench of this Court LPA No.2356 of 2024 decided on 26.09.2024 titled as “State of Haryana and others vs. holding the concerned writ-petitioners entitled for the benefit as claimed by them noticed above. 3.However, we have taken note of the fact that with es, certain SLPs were (O&M) .2025 s s claim of LPA No.105 of 2025 titled as ‘State of Haryana and other vs. Damyanti, MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.23 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-958-2025 (O&M) preferred before the Supreme Court one of them is Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.112/2025 tilted as Haryana & Ors. vs. Sushil” No.56458/2024 whereas in the meantime, the Apex Court stayed the o therefore, are of the view that we should await the final judgment to be rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in these cases and the present appeals, which many of them are highly belated, need not be kept pending observations that whatever is the final verdict rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025 shall govern the fate to all the respondents herein. It is made clear that till disposa proceedings would be initiated on account of non implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge. At the same time, the claim of the writ not be frustrated if the order is ultimately passed agai the State by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. also stand disposed of. 3. In view of the above, above shall apply 4. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 20.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? (O&M) preferred before the Supreme Court one of them is Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.112/2025 tilted as Haryana & Ors. vs. Sushil” and the other is having Diary No.56458/2024 whereas in the meantime, the Apex Court stayed the operation and effect of the judgment. We, therefore, are of the view that we should await the final judgment to be rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in these cases and the present appeals, which many of them are highly belated, need not be kept pending 4. Accordingly, we dispose of all these appeals with observations that whatever is the final verdict rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025 shall govern the fate to all the respondents herein. It is made clear that till disposal of the said SLP, no contempt proceedings would be initiated on account of non implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge. At the same time, the claim of the writ not be frustrated if the order is ultimately passed agai the State by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 5. All the pending misc. application(s) in each case also stand disposed of.” In view of the above, present appeal stand above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the instant case. pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No preferred before the Supreme Court one of them is Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.112/2025 tilted as “State of and the other is having Diary No.56458/2024 whereas in the meantime, the Apex Court peration and effect of the judgment. We, therefore, are of the view that we should await the final judgment to be rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in these cases and the present appeals, which many of them are highly belated, need not be kept pending before us. Accordingly, we dispose of all these appeals with observations that whatever is the final verdict rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025 shall govern the fate to all the respondents herein. It is made l of the said SLP, no contempt proceedings would be initiated on account of non- implementation of the order of the learned Single Judge. At the same time, the claim of the writ-petitioners would also not be frustrated if the order is ultimately passed against the State by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 5. All the pending misc. application(s) in each case stands disposed of. The order passed to the instant case. pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No The order passed MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.23 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document