IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 114 COCP-2982-2026 Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Santosh @ Rajbiri and others ...Petitioners Versus K.C. Meena, IFS and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Yash Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for alleged wilful disobedience of order dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in CWP-678-2026, the operative part of which reads as under:- “2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that present petition be disposed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP-26643-2025 titled as 'Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors'. decided on 23.12.2025, wherein similar issue has been adjudicated. 3. Learned State counsel does not intend to file written statement in the present case and further, corroborated the submission made by counsel for the petitioners stating that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Manoj Kumar (supra). 4. Accordingly, in view of the settled position of law and for the sake of consistency, the present writ petition is allowed in the same terms and with the same directions as issued by this Court in CWP-26643-2025, decided on 23.12.2025. 5. Ordered accordingly.” HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP-2982-2026 (2) 2. It is notable that on a consensus arrived at between the parties, CWP-678-2026 was disposed of in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP-26643-2025, titled as ‘Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another’, the operative part of which reads as under:- “66. In view of the discussion above, this Court holds that the petitioner satisfied the conditions of the regularization policy dated 01.10.2003 (as amended on 10.02.2004) during the period it was in force. The withdrawal of the said policies cannot defeat the petitioner’s claim when similarly situated and even junior employees have been granted regularization by the respondents under the same policy framework or under subsequent schemes. It must not be forgotten that justice is not merely about technical legality but about ensuring that the constitutional promise of equality is lived in practice. 67. In consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s claim for regularization strictly in terms of the Government of Haryana Regularization Policy dated 01.10.2003, as amended on 10.02.2004, and to pass appropriate orders granting regular status within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such regularization, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including payment of arrears of salary in accordance with law. 68. This Court is mindful of the prolonged period of hardship, insecurity, and deprivation suffered by the petitioner, who belongs to a vulnerable section of the workforce. While the passage of time cannot be undone, HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP-2982-2026 (3) the ends of justice warrant meaningful relief. Accordingly, the arrears payable to the petitioner shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date the amounts became due till the date of actual disbursement, as a measured acknowledgment of the delay in enforcement of his lawful rights.” 3. On an advance copy of petition having been furnished to the respondents, Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana, puts in appearance on their behalf and has submitted that against the common judgment dated 23.12.2025, whereby a bunch of petitions was disposed of, LPA had been filed, which also stands disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.05.2026, operative part of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this batch of appeals with a direction upon the State to examine individual cases of the respondents – writ petitioners for regularization, keeping in view the policy in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh (supra), as also the judgment of this Court in LPA-1810-2025 (supra). 7. Till specific orders as directed by the learned Single Judge are passed by the authorities, status quo with regard to working of the employees would be maintained and the same shall abide by the ultimate orders to be passed by the State in that regard. 8. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that case of the petitioner would be considered for regularisation in the light of HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP-2982-2026 (4) the abovesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 5. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present contempt petition be disposed of with liberty to seek revival or to file a fresh contempt petition, in case after the decision so taken by the respondents-State in pursuance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, any grievance still survives. 6. Keeping in view the abovesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty aforesaid. ( VIKAS SURI ) July 06, 2026 JUDGE harish Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No HARISH KUMAR 2026.07.07 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment