CM-10024-CWP-2025 & CM-10025-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25501-2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (105) CM-10024-CWP-2025 & CM-10025-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25501-2018 Date of Decision : July 24, 2025 Raghbir and another .. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioners. Ms. Anu Pal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL) CM-10024-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 673 days in filing the restoration application. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite. Ms. Anu Pal, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. She raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 673 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. HARSHA RANI 2025.07.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-10024-CWP-2025 & CM-10025-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25501-2018 2 CM-10025-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 08.08.2023, by which, the present writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite. Ms. Anu Pal, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. She raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 08.08.2023 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status. CWP-25501-2018 1. In the present writ petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioners is that they are entitled for benefit of regularization of their services keeping in view the fact that they have been working since long and their claim needs to be considered under the policy dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that once the petitioners are eligible under the above-mentioned policy for claiming benefit of regularization in service, they should have been granted the benefit of regularization, which benefit has not been extended to the petitioners which is causing prejudice to them. HARSHA RANI 2025.07.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-10024-CWP-2025 & CM-10025-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25501-2018 3 3. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have appeared and stated that the petitioners either do not fulfill the requisite of the Rules governing the service qua the post of Sweeper as has been stipulated in the said policy or they do not fulfill the requisite time period in service for claiming benefit of regularization in service under 2011 policy. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that qua petitioner No.1, under the 1963 Rules governing over the service, certain qualifications have been prescribed so as to consider a candidate as eligible, which criterias are not fulfilled by the petitioner No.1 and therefore, any employee who does not fulfill the requisites of the said 1963 Rules, cannot claim the benefit of regularization of service under the 2011 policy dehors the provisions of the Rules governing over service. 5. Qua petitioner No.2, it has been stated that the claim qua regularization under 2011 Policy is not admissible as on the date of consideration i.e. 2006, petitioner No.2 did not have 10 years of service so as to be considered under the said policy for grant of benefit of regularization as he was appointed in the year 1998 and the terms and conditions of the said policy are not under challenged in the present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 7. The only grievance of the petitioners is that they were working with the respondents on part time basis on the post of Sweeper but their services are not being regularized despite there being a policy dated HARSHA RANI 2025.07.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-10024-CWP-2025 & CM-10025-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25501-2018 4 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-5), granting the said benefit under fulfillment of certain conditions. 8. The benefit of regularization of service can only be given in case an employee fulfills the necessary requisite for the post in question as has been envisaged under the Rules governing over the service. It is a conceded position that the Punjab State (Class-IV) Service Rules, 1963 were applicable and in force at the time when the petitioners were engaged on part time basis. The requisites of the 1963 Rules i.e. the qualification prescribed to be eligible to be appointed on the said post are concededly not fulfilled by the petitioner No.1. That being so, the claim of regularization of service dehors the 1963 Rules, cannot be accepted. 9. Qua the said issue, reliance is being placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.5926 of 2000 titled as Vidya Devi vs. State of Haryana, decided on 20.02.2002 to contend that the stipulation of essential qualification in the policy should not be taken into account to deny the benefit of regularization in service. The said judgment is not applicable as in the present case, the reliance is being placed upon the 1963 Rules which envisaged a particular qualification to be possessed by the candidate to be eligible to be appointed on the post of Sweeper which qualification concededly is not possessed by the petitioners and therefore, the judgment in Vidya Devi’s case (supra) will not come to the rescue of petitioner No.1 to claim regularization. HARSHA RANI 2025.07.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-10024-CWP-2025 & CM-10025-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-25501-2018 5 10. Qua petitioner No.2, it has already come on record that he was appointed in the year 1998 and did not have 10 years of service upto the year 2006 which was the date of consideration as per the 2011 policy under which the petitioners are claiming the benefit of regularization of their service. Once, the petitioner does not fulfill the time period required for consideration of regularization of service, the claim of such an employee who does not fulfill the terms and conditions of the policy, cannot be entertained. 11. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no illegality has been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners qua the action taken by the respondents in respect of the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services. 12. No ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present case. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. July 24, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) harsha JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2025.07.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document