IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 106 Amarpati and others State of Haryana CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) (1) Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners appointment view of the this Court in a bunch of similar writ petitions including in 35408-2025 (Neeraj Rani & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) (2) State counsel are the petitioners is squarely covered by the dictum of this Court rendered in CWP-20231-2026 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20231 of 2026 Date of decision : Amarpati and others Versus State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Bhavesh Ola, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G. Haryana NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, on their respective posts from the date of their initial appointments of more than 10 years, with all consequen view of the judgment dated 18.04.2026 this Court in a bunch of similar writ petitions including in 2025 (Neeraj Rani & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel are ad idem and do not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the dictum of this Court rendered in Neeraj Rani & Ors. case (supra). 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 20231 of 2026 (O & M) Date of decision :-08.07.2026 …..Petitioners …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G. Haryana. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the on their respective posts from the date of their initial with all consequential benefits in (Annexure P-11) passed by this Court in a bunch of similar writ petitions including in CWP- 2025 (Neeraj Rani & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.). Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned and do not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the dictum of this Court case (supra). However, it is pointed VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.10 18.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document out by learned State counsel that the respondent file an LPA against the (3). (4) Neeraj Rani & Ors. petitions as follows : (5) covered by the above decision rendered in (supra), present p respondent CWP-20231-2026 (O & M) out by learned State counsel that the respondent file an LPA against the order dated 18.04.2026 Heard. In similar circumstances, co Neeraj Rani & Ors. Case (supra) had allowed the petitions as follows :- “Conclusion 87. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is satisfied that the petitioners, having been appointed through a due process of selection, having continuously discharged essential functions for the State, and having over a decade, have acquired a legitimate claim for regularization. To deny them such consideration would be to perpetuate uncertainty where stability is warranted. 88. The present bunch of petitions is allowed. 89. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take immediate steps. required to regularise the services of those petitioners who have completed more than ten years of continuous service, in accordance with law. Necessary orders be passe regularizing their services within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” As learned counsel are ad idem covered by the above decision rendered in (supra), present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to make a similar determination in case of the 2 out by learned State counsel that the respondent-State is proposing to order dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-13). In similar circumstances, co-ordinate Bench in case of Case (supra) had allowed the bunch of writ In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is satisfied that the petitioners, having been appointed through a due process of selection, having continuously discharged essential functions r the State, and having remained in service for over a decade, have acquired a legitimate claim for regularization. To deny them such consideration would be to perpetuate uncertainty where stability is warranted. The present bunch of petitions is hereby Consequently, the respondents are directed to take immediate steps. required to regularise the services of those petitioners who have completed more than ten years of continuous service, in accordance with law. Necessary orders be passed regularizing their services within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of ad idem that present case is covered by the above decision rendered in Neeraj Rani & Ors. Case etition is disposed of with a direction to the State to make a similar determination in case of the VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.10 18.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document present petitioners that: a) Petitioners herein have been appointed through a due process of selection: b) that they have worked continuously for considered for regularization. After making such determination necessary orders in accordance with law be passed regularizing the services of the petitioners. (6). (7). July 08, 202 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No CWP-20231-2026 (O & M) present petitioners that: a) Petitioners herein have been appointed through a due process of selection: b) that they have worked continuously for over a decade: c) and are therefore liable to be considered for regularization. After making such determination necessary orders in accordance with law be passed regularizing the services of the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 3 present petitioners that: a) Petitioners herein have been appointed through a due process of selection: b) that they have worked over a decade: c) and are therefore liable to be considered for regularization. After making such determination necessary orders in accordance with law be passed regularizing the any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.10 18.59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document