Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 65922 (PNJ)

SHEESH PAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

CWP/16495/2025 · 2025-08-20

Vinod S Bhardwaj

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-16495-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025 Sheesh Pal and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s). ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners on the post of Programmers/Jr. Programmers as per the regularisation Policy of 2014, w.e.f. 31.08.2016, alleging that the petitioners have been regularised against a lower post of Clerk. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were regularised by the respondents under the Policy of 2014, which such Policy of Regularisation has been already set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 17206-2014 titled as “Yogesh Tyagi and another vs. State of Haryana and others”, against which SLP(C)-31566-2018 has been preferred. An order of status quo has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Under the given circumstances, the filing of this writ petition is a clandestine way of over-reaching the order of ‘status quo’ that has already been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the employees who had been regularised under the Policy of 2014. The petitioners seek regularisation against a higher post under the same Policy, which cannot be ordered at this stage. 4. The instant writ petition is hence dismissed in limine. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 20.08.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.25 13:39 I am the author of this document