-1- CWP-39430-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 CWP-39430-2025 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 Seetu Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate (through VC) and Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana. ***** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to count the period of break in service of the petitioner as continuity of service of the petitioner and release all the consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner, inter alia, contends that similarly situated Extension Lecturer has been granted continuity of service as discernible from Annexure P14. Learned counsel, while referring to detailed Inquiry Report (Annexure P8), submits that the break in service of the petitioner is attributable to the respondents and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the administrative lapses by the respondents. 2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State of Haryana has promulgated the “Haryana Extension Lecturer and Guest Lecturer (Security of Service) Act, 2024” (for short, "the 2024 Act") and provisions thereof are pari materia to the principles enunciated in the judgment rendered by this Court on OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.21 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CWP-39430-2025 27.02.2026 in CWP No. 5144 of 2026, titled Dinesh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others. 2.2 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present writ petition is treated as a comprehensive representation and the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the claim raised by the petitioner, in accordance with the aforesaid judgment and the provisions of the 2024 Act, as amended. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner for security of tenure can be examined under the provisions of the 2024 Act, as amended on 11.06.2026, and that appropriate orders shall be passed after examining the eligibility of the petitioner in terms thereof. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, as above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Director General, Higher Education to treat the present writ petition as a comprehensive representation and to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra) as well as the provisions of the 2024 Act, as amended, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. It is further directed that the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner. Needless to observe that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed, all consequential benefits shall also be granted expeditiously, in accordance with law. ( HARPREET SINGH BRAR ) July 20 , 2026. JUDGE ‘om’ Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No OMKAR SINGH 2026.07.21 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document