208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sanjeev Kapo State of Haryana and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Mr. R. Kartikeya Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. Vide order dated 11.10.2017, status quo with regard to services of the petitioners was directed to be informed. 2. It is informed by learned counsel a far as the policy and clause impugned in the present writ petition, the same was examined by a Coordinate Bench and policy of regularization dated 18.06.2014, was quashed. The same is now under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in of Haryana and others v. Yogesh Tyagi and another quo has been directed to be maintained 3. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the present case pending before this Court as the fate IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23299 Date of Decision: Sanjeev Kapoor and others Vs. State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Karan Ranjha, Advocate for Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 11.10.2017, status quo with regard to services of the petitioners was directed to be informed. It is informed by learned counsel a far as the policy and clause impugned in the present writ petition, the same was examined by a Coordinate Bench and policy of regularization dated 18.06.2014, was quashed. The same is now under challenge before the preme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 31566/2018, of Haryana and others v. Yogesh Tyagi and another quo has been directed to be maintained Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the present case pending before this Court as the fate IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 23299-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 …Petitioners …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Karan Ranjha, Advocate for , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 11.10.2017, status quo with regard to services of the petitioners was directed to be informed. It is informed by learned counsel appearing for the State that so far as the policy and clause impugned in the present writ petition, the same was examined by a Coordinate Bench and policy of regularization dated 18.06.2014, was quashed. The same is now under challenge before the Special Leave Petition (Civil) 31566/2018, State of Haryana and others v. Yogesh Tyagi and another, wherein also status Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the present case pending before this Court as the fate Vide order dated 11.10.2017, status quo with regard to services ppearing for the State that so far as the policy and clause impugned in the present writ petition, the same was examined by a Coordinate Bench and policy of regularization dated 18.06.2014, was quashed. The same is now under challenge before the State wherein also status Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the present case pending before this Court as the fate RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.19 15:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23299-2017 (O&M) [2] of the petitioners would have to be governed by the judgment to be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Tyagi case (supra). 4. Since, there is a status quo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case and in the present case too there was a status quo order passed while issuing notice of motion on 11.10.2017, we dispose of this writ petition making the interim order dated 11.10.2017 as absolute and the same would be subject to the final decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Tyagi case (supra). 5. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 14.05.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.05.19 15:02 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.